Subhransu Sekhar Debnath Vs State Level Scrutiny Committee, Cuttack

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. Nos.611 and 1082 of 2025

¶3

Subhransu Sekhar Debnath …. Appellant (in W.A. No.611 of 2025)

¶4

Mr. Uma Charan Mishra, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. The State Level Scrutiny Respondents Committee, Cuttack and others

¶7

Mr. Bimbisar Dash, AGA for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. Akhand, Advocate for Respondent No.6 Subhransu Sekhar Debnath and …. Appellants another (in W.A. No.1082 of 2025)

¶8

Mr. Uma Charan Mishra, Advocate

¶9

-versus-

¶10

…. The State Level Scrutiny Respondents Committee, Cuttack and others

¶11

Mr. Bimbisar Dash, AGA for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. Akhand, Advocate for Respondent No.8

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶14

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Order No.

ORDER 05.08.2025

I.A. No.3144 of 2025 in W.A. No.1082 of 2025

¶19

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶20

This is an application for condonation of delay of 30 days in preferring the instant writ appeal against the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the Single Bench in W.P.(C) No.9959 of 2025.

¶21

After perusal of the averments made in paragraphs-3 & 4 of the instant application, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the instant appeal

¶22

Page 1 of 4

¶23

within the statutory period of limitation provided therefor. Hence, the delay of 30 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned.

¶24

In view of the above, I.A. stands disposed of.

¶25

W.A. Nos.611 and 1082 of 2025

¶26

The case has a checkered history. The appellants have approached the Court on multiple occasions flagging one issue or other on the action of the authorities and the writ petitions were disposed of by passing directions upon the authorities to act in a particular manner.

¶27

The issue relates to a genuinity and authenticity of the caste certificates issued in favour of the appellants. There appears to be the divergent report submitted by two independent authorities, which led the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) to issue show-cause notice and directed for independent joint report to be submitted.

¶28

The appellants raised the grievance that though the independent joint report was sought for, the authorities, upon whom such task was entrusted, shrug their responsibility and entrusted such onerous exercise to the same authority, who gave the earlier conflicting reports. The approach was made to this Court and ultimately the direction was passed permitting the appellants to raise such issue before the SLSC, who shall take a conscious decision in this regard. After disposal of the writ petitions in seriatim , ultimately the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4774 of 2025 was filed by appellant-Subhransu Sekhar Debnath challenging the action of the authority in not permitting

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

the said appellant to raise all such issues, which was disposed of on 7^th March, 2025 directing the authorities to issue a show-cause notice afresh and permitting him to file a reply within a time frame and thereafter the SLSC was directed to dispose of the proceedings after observing the principles of natural justice. Since the time for filing reply was stipulated in the said order dated 7^th March, 2025, it appears that the SLSC took up the matter on 12^th March, 2025, i.e., within five days from the date of the said order and passed the final order without noticing that the appellant-Subhransu Sekhar Debnath was permitted to file a reply within four weeks from the date. The said order dated 12^th March, 2025 was further assailed by the appellant-Subhransu Sekhar Debnath and his sister-Nilima Kumari Debnath in another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.9959 of 2025 and the same was disposed of by quashing and setting aside the said order and directing the SLSC to take a decision in compliance to the direction passed by this Court on 7^th March, 2025. The said order is also assailed in the aforementioned appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Court has not taken into consideration the pivotal issue that the report submitted by the third independent authority is replica of the earlier one as those independent authorities have not taken an independent exercise, but entrusted the said task on the same authorities, whose reports were found contradictory.

¶32

Since the order dated 7^th March, 2025 takes care of all the issues and permitted the appellant-Subhransu Sekhar Debnath to take such plea before the SLSC, it was an ardent duty of the SLSC to take a decision thereupon. Once the Court directed the

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

authority to take an independent decision, it is not expected that the said authority would proceed with the close mind, but shall pass the order after recording the proper reasons. Since the order dated 12^th March, 2025 was passed unnoticing the order dated 7^th March, 2025, we do not find any illegality and/or infirmity in the order challenged in the writ appeal when the Single Bench quashed and set aside the same being contrary to the order dated 7^th March, 2025.

¶35

We do not find that the appellants can maintain the instant appeals when the Single Bench directed the initiation of a fresh proceeding and giving an opportunity to them to raise all such issues including the acceptance or rejection of the report submitted by a third independent authority. In the event, any such decision is taken adverse to the appellants, it is a fresh cause of action which can be assailed before the competent authority and cannot be reopened in the instant writ appeals.

¶36

We thus do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in order dated 7^th March, 2025 and subsequent order dated 9^th May, 2025. However, we observe that all the points available to the appellants, if taken before the appropriate forum, shall be decided on its merit independent of any observation made hereinabove. 12. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are disposed of.

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Aug-2025 18:04:32 MRS/Laxmikant

¶39

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶40

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Subhransu Sekhar Debnath v. State Level Scrutiny Committee, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhransu Sekhar Debnath v. State Level Scrutiny Committee, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaja Gobinda Routray Vs State of Odisha

Suvendu Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Babula Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Sukantilata Das Vs State of Odisha

Paka Sahoo Vs Sombari Sahoo

Biswa Ranjan Mohanty Vs Union of India