Pradipta Kumar Rout Vs State of Orissa

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.4327 of 2018

¶3

Pradipta Kumar Rout

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Tushar Kumar Mishra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite parties Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, Advocate (for Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3) Mr. Jayanta Kumar Bal, Advocate (for Opp. Party Nos. 4 &5)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Order No. 22.

ORDER

21.02.2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶14

Mr. Tushar Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against decision dated 06.01.2017 of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack in Certificate Appeal No.2 of 2014 under the provisions of the Odisha Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 (for short, “OPDR Act”), the Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

Though pleadings are completed and this matter has been pending since 2018, strong objection has been raised by Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the Opp. Party Nos.2 and 3 by contending that against the original notice for recovery of the requisitioned amount, the Petitioner challenged the same before the Appellate Authority under Section 60 of the OPDR Act. It is submitted that against the order in appeal the Petitioner should have

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

availed remedy of revision under Section 61 of the said Act. Instead of seeking alternative remedy as available under the statute, the petitioner having approached this Court invoking provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine .

¶18

Mr. Tushar Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner opposing such submission of the learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3, advanced argument that since this Court entertained the writ petition vide order dated 03.04.2019 and granted interim protection, at this stage after filing of response by the opposite parties, the objection raised is not palatable.

¶19

Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.2 and 3 responding to such objection of Mr. Tushar Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the opposite parties while filing counter affidavit have set up such plea.

¶20

Mr. Jayanta Kumar Bal, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.4 and 5 sailing on the same boat as that of the opposite party nos.2 and 3 contended that in the counter Affidavit the opposite parties have raised question of maintainability of the writ petition against the order of the Appellate Authority under the aforesaid OPDR Act.

¶21

This Court perused the record and discerned that the Petitioner has, in fact, availed the appellate remedy and the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack, vide decision dated 06.01.2017 upheld the order of the Collector, Cuttack- cum - Certificate Officer, Cuttack, passed in Certificate Case No.1 of 2012 and consequently, rejected the Certificate Appeal No.2 of 2014.

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

8. Section-61 of the OPDR Act reads as follows:-

¶24

“ 61. Revision - An order passed in an appeal under Section 60 may be revised by-

¶25

(a) if the order was passed by an Additional District Magistrate or by a Collector, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner;

¶26

(b) if the order was passed by a Revenue Divisional Commissioner, the Board of Revenue :

¶27

Provided that where the certificate-debtor makes an application under this section for revision of any appellate order, no such application shall be entertained unless he has paid all amounts due under the certificate to the Certificate Officer, whether or not, under protest made in writing at the time of payment, and produces a certificate from the Certificate Officer showing such payment to have been made.”

¶28

Since the decision in appeal has been rendered by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack, in view of Section 61(b) of the OPDR Act, the revision against the appellate order lies before the Board of Revenue. As it seems in order to circumvent the condition hedged to entertain the Revision by way of proviso to said provision, the Petitioner has directly approached this Court in the writ petition.

¶29

This Court while acceding to the objection raised by Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3, declines to entertain this writ petition.

¶30

However, liberty is reserved to the Petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available under the OPDR Act under Section 61 of the OPDR Act. In the event, revision is preferred with statutory requirement along with appropriate application under Section 64 of the said Act, the same shall be considered pragmatically by the Revisional Authority, i.e ., Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack. It may be apt to observe that the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack while considering entertainment of revision petition shall bear in

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

Sarbani

¶33

mind the fact that the impugned order, being challenged in this writ petition directly, was pending since 2018.

¶34

With aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed

¶35

of.

¶36

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHERReason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 21-Feb-2025 17:23:17

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Pradipta Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradipta Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dindayal Shah Vs State of Odisha

Nila Nag Vs Union of India

Rupali Badapanda Vs Director General of Crpf, New Delhi

Purnamasi Sahoo Vs Subhakanta Sahoo

Dusmanta Behera Vs Santosh Kumar Nayak

Taruni Bag Vs Chudamani Bag