Prasant Kumar Digal Vs State of Odisha

3. Pursuant to the orders dtd.27.01.2026 and 17.02.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction so provided by the RDC, Southern Division vide letter dtd.11.03.2026. The same be kept in record.

¶14

4. Basing on the instruction, it is contended that letter dtd.27.10.2025 was duly communicated to the Petitioner by post.

¶15

5. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶16

“Therefore it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue rule nisi to the Opp.parties as to why the final order dtd.29.11.2025 in FCC No.460/10 passed by the Opp. No.3 vide Annexure-7 shall not be

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

quashed on the ground stated in the writ petition and the Opp.parties showing no cause or insufficient cause or cause not to the satisfaction of the Hon'ble Court, the writ petition may be allowed.

¶19

And for which act of the Hon'ble Court's grace the petitioner shall ever pray.”

¶20

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was before this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No.9167 of 2017. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dtd.13.11.2024 under Annexure5, inter alia with the following order:-

¶21

“1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶22

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

3. Since the Writ Petition has been filed against a notice, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. It is open for the petitioner to take all those stand that has been taken in the Writ Petition while filing the reply against the said notice. It is observed that the Committee shall take into consideration the reply and proceed with the matter in accordance with law, in which this Court expresses no opinion.

¶24

4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

5. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.”

¶26

6.1 . It is contended that pursuant to the order so passed, Petitioner filed his reply to the show cause on 25.06.2025 under Annexure-6 and after receipt of the same, in terms of the provisions contained under Rule7(14) of the Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023 (In short ‘Rules’). Proclamation was issued to the District

¶27

Page 2 of 8

¶28

// 3 //

¶29

Welfare Officer and concerned Tahasildar vide letter dtd.30.06.2025.

¶30

6 . 2 . It is contended that basing on such proclamation, concerned Tahasildar vide letter dtd.28.07.2025 submitted the report to the effect that no objection has been received during the proclamation period. Concerned Tahasildar vide letter dtd.14.10.2025, submitted filed enquiry report so furnished by the R.I., Katingia.

¶31

6.3 . It is contended that without providing the report so submitted after proclamation by the Tahasildar on 28.07.2025 and report of the RI so submitted vide letter 16.10.2025 and without following the provisions contained under Rule-7(14) to 7(20) of the aforesaid rules, the matter was finally disposed of by the Committee vide the impugned order dtd.29.11.2025 under Annexure-7. Rule-7(14) to 7(20) of the Rules reads as follows:-

¶32

“7 (14) After conducting the personal hearing, the Scrutiny Committee shall issue proclamation through the concerned District Welfare Officer and Tahasildar in the locality of the alleged person inviting objections from persons and registered organizations within fifteen days from the date of issue of proclamation by beat of drum or any other mode and to accomplish the task, the Member Convener of the Scrutiny Committee shall send the copies of the allegation petition, the enquiry report of the District Vigilance Cell, the show cause reply of the alleged person and the statements of the alleged person, the complainant and the witnesses recorded during personal hearing to the

¶33

Page 3 of 8

¶34

// 4 //

¶35

concerned District Welfare Officer or Tahasildar translated into the local language.

¶36

(15) Any person or organization who wants to say anything in the case, shall intimate the Chairperson of the Scrutiny Committee in writing adducing evidences either through the concerned District Welfare Officer or the Tahasildar, as the case may be, or directly within the stipulated period of fifteen days after which no petitions shall be entertained.

¶37

(16) Within a week from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days, the District Welfare Officer or Tahasildar, as the case may be, shall intimate the Member Convener of the Scrutiny Committee about the date of proclamation and the petitions received from any quarter.

¶38

(17) In case the petitioner wants to be heard in person and to adduce evidences before the Scrutiny Committee he or she shall be allowed to do so either in person or through counsel.

¶39

(18) The date of hearing to be fixed by the Scrutiny Committee shall be duly intimated to such petitioner and the hearing shall be conducted transparently in presence of the alleged person and his or her counsel, if any, providing him or her opportunity to defend himself or herself and the proceedings of the hearing shall be recorded.

¶40

(19) After the hearing, if so required, the Scrutiny Committee may make further enquiries through the District Vigilance Cell and other concerned officers to gather evidences and ascertain the truth and thereafter the process of enquiry shall be concluded.

¶41

(20) After conclusion of the process Committee shall fix up a date for consideration of the facts and findings of the case and pass the final speaking order and if any new facts come to notice, the Scrutiny Committee shall decide to address the same in the manner as it may like and then pass the final order.”

¶42

6.4 . Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since after receipt of the report after issuance of the proclamation on 28.07.2025 and the

¶43

Page 4 of 8

¶44

// 5 //

¶45

report of the RI vide letter dtd.14.10.2025, the same were never provided to the Petitioner, and the matter was disposed of finally with passing of the impugned order dtd.29.11.2025 without following the provisions contained under Rule-7(15) to 7(20) of the Rules, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court.

¶46

6 . 5 . It is also contended that prior to filing of the reply to the show-cause on 25.06.2025 under Annexure-6, the Committee had recorded the statement of the witnesses on 07.10.2023 and Petitioner was never given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses so examined by the prosecution.

¶47

Making all these submission, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶48

7. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand basing on the instruction contended that after remand of the matter by this Court and on filing of the reply by the Petitioner on 25.06.2025 under Annexure-6, proclamation was issued by the Committee vide letter dtd.30.06.2025. The report was submitted by the concerned Tahasildar, vide letter dtd.28.07.2025 with the report that no objection has been received during the proclamation period. Subsequently filed enquiry report submitted by the RI

¶49

Page 5 of 8

¶50

// 6 //

¶51

that Petitioner does belong to ‘Panna’ by caste and Christian in religion was forwarded by the Tahasildar, vide letter dtd.14.10.2025. Both the report after proclamation and the report of the RI was provided to the Petitioner vide letter dtd.14.10.2025 and the same was duly received by the Petitioner. Since Petitioner never filed any objection to the report nor the report of the RI, the matter was finally heard and disposed of vide the impugned order dtd.29.11.2025 under Annexure-7.

¶52

7.1 . It is accordingly contended that since after receipt of the report on proclamation and the report of the RI so provided to the Petitioner vide letter dtd.14.10.2025, Petitioner never took any further steps in the matter, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

¶53

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner challenging the notice issued in the proceeding was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.9176 of 2017. This Court while directing the State Counsel to obtain instruction passed an interim order on 28.06.2017, by staying the further proceeding in FCC No.460 of 2010.

¶54

8.1 . However, the Writ Petition was ultimately disposed of by this Court vide order dtd. 13.11.2024,

¶55

Page 6 of 8

¶56

// 7 //

¶57

wherein Petitioner was permitted to file his reply to the show cause and direction was issued to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

¶58

8 . 2 . In terms of the said order, Petitioner as found, filed his reply under Annexure-6 on 25.06.2025 and on receipt of such reply, proclamation was issued by the Committee –Opposite Party No.3 on 30.06.2025. Report after such proclamation was forwarded by the concerned Tahasildar vide letter dtd.28.07.2025 and filed enquiry report of the concerned R.I showing that Petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste, was also submitted by the Tahasildar vide letter dtd.14.10.2025.

¶59

8.3 . Even though accepting the stand that report of the Tahasildar dtd.28.07.2025 and filed enquiry report of the RI forwarded vide letter dtd.14.10.2025 were communicated to the Petitioner vide letter dtd.14.10.2025, this Court finds that after receipt of the report vide letter dtd.28.07.2025 and the other report vide letter dtd14.10.2025, the proceeding was never conducted in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-7(15) to 7(20) of the Rules. Not only that prior to appearance of the Petitioner with filing of his reply to the show-cause on 25.06.2025, the Committee had already recorded the statement of the witnesses on 07.10.2023 and Petitioner was never allowed to crossexamine such witnesses.

¶60

Page 7 of 8

¶61

// 8 //

¶62

8 . 4 . Since admittedly after receipt of the report and the report of the RI, provisions contained under Rule7(15) to 7(20) of the Rules have not been followed and Petitioner has not been given an opportunity of hearing to lead his evidence in support of his stand nor has been allowed to cross-examine the witness examined on 07.10.2023, it is the view of this Court that, the impugned order cannot sustain legal scrutiny and accordingly is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶63

8 . 5 . Therefore, while quashing the impugned order dtd.29.11.2025 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 in FCC No.460 of 2010, this Court directs the Committee to dispose of the matter from the stage of receipt of the report on proclamation and by following the provisions contained under Rule-7(15) to 7(20) of the Rules. This Court directs the Committee to dispose of the matter so directed within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶64

8.6 . Petitioner is directed to appear before Opposite Party No.3 along with a copy of this order on 26.03.2026. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel is also directed to provide a copy of this order on or before Opposite Party No.3 for compliance.

¶65

9 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶66

Signature Not Verified

¶67

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Subrat Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 18-Mar-2026 18:04:19

¶68

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶69

Page 8 of 8

Prasant Kumar Digal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasant Kumar Digal 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijay Kumar Das Vs Nibedita Pani, D.E.O., Jajpur

Khetrabasi Garnayak Vs State of Odisha

Dasarathi Das Vs Odisha Grameen Bank, Gandamunda, Bbsr

Subash Chandra Swain Vs State of Odisha

Hari Krushna Patro Vs State of Orissa

Sudarsan Sahu Vs State of Odisha