Allowed¶19

Santoshi Raika @ Bhuyan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 Jan 2025WP(C)/17473/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi Worker; Ghodakana Anganwadi Centre; Gajapati; forgery of educational certificates; Misc. Appeal (AWW) No. 2 of 2017; Addl. District Magistrate Paralakhemundi; order dated 01.08.2019 set aside; violation of principles of natural justice; no opportunity of hearing; non-speaking/unreasoned order; remand for fresh hearing; reasoned order within two months; W.P.(C) No. 17473 of 2020; High Court of Orissa; Sashikanta Mishra, J.; 13.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 01.08.2019 set aside; matter remitted to the Addl. District Magistrate, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi to hear and decide Misc. Appeal (AWW) No. 2 of 2017 afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned, with direction to pass a reasoned order preferably within two months. ¶19

Santoshi Raika @ Bhuyan Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 01.08.2019 of the Addl. District Magistrate was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, rendering it violative of the principles of natural justice. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law because it was passed against the principles of natural justice and for non-citing of reasons.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The ADM took the petitioner's guilt of forgery of her educational certificates for granted without stating how that finding was reached, issuing instructions for subsequent steps instead of recording reasoned findings.

¶16

Key takeaways

The matter is remitted to the Addl. District Magistrate, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi to hear and decide the appeal afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.ratio¶19
The appellate authority shall pass a reasoned order touching all factual aspects of the matter and dispose of the 2017 appeal as early as possible, preferably within two months from production of the certified copy of this order.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (C) No. 17473 of 2020, decided on 13.01.2025 by Sashikanta Mishra, J., High Court of Orissa at Cuttack: The petitioner, an Anganwadi Worker of Ghodakana Anganwadi Centre, Gajapati, challenged the order dated 01.08.2019 of the Addl. District Magistrate, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi in Misc. Appeal (AWW) No. 2 of 2017. The Court found the order unsustainable as it gave no indication that the petitioner was heard, made observations without specific findings on the grounds raised by the appellant (opposite party No.7), and treated her alleged forgery of educational certificates as taken for granted without stating how the finding was reached. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the appeal remitted to the ADM for fresh disposal after hearing all concerned, with directions to pass a reasoned order touching all factual aspects, preferably within two months.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 17473 of 2020

¶3

Santoshi Raika @ Bhuyan

¶4

..... Petitioner Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and Ors.

¶7

..... Opposite party Addl. Government Advocate

¶8

Mr. S.K. Dash, Adv. for O.P. No.7

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

13.01.2025

Order No.

15.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

The petitioner, who was working as Anganwadi Worker of Ghodakana Anganwadi Centre in the district of Gajapati, has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi in Misc. Appeal (AWW) No. 2 of 2017. A reading of the impugned order reveals that firstly there is no mention therein as to if the petitioner was given any opportunity of hearing. Secondly, certain observations have been made without rendering specific findings on the grounds raised by the appellant (opposite party No.7). The ADM appears to have accepted that the present petitioner is guilty of committing forgery of her educational certificates but how he arrived at such finding has not been stated at all, rather, her guilt appears to have been taken for granted and instructions issued for taking subsequent steps in the matter.

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

Obviously, under such circumstances, the order cannot be sustained in the eye of law for having been passed against the principles of natural justice and for non-citing of reasons.

¶19

The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Addl. District Magistrate Gajapati, Paralakhemundi to hear and decide the appeal afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

¶20

It goes without saying that the appellate authority shall pass a reasoned order touching all factual aspects of the matter. Since the appeal is of the year 2017, the appellate authority shall do well to dispose of the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by either of the parties.

¶21

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

A.K. Rana

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 13-Jan-2025 16:28:33

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Santoshi Raika @ Bhuyan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santoshi Raika @ Bhuyan v. State of Odisha

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

Braja Kishore Swain Vs State of Odisha

Rinki Kathar Vs State of Odisha

Hari Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Sarapanch, Jogisarda Gram Panchayat, Bolangir Vs State of Odisha

Vijay Bhan Vs Union of India

Narendra Meher Vs State of Odisha