Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 610 (ORI)

Labanya Kumar Mahanta v. Collector, Keonjhar

2008-07-30

B.N.MAHAPATRA

body2008
JUDGMENT Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, C.J. — This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.8.2000 passed by the District Collector, Keonjhar refusing to issue the distress certificate. 2. The order impugned has been passed by the District Collector only on the basis of the report of the Tahasildar and without giving any opportunity to the present petitioner to rebut the same. Petitioner’s father was a Asst. Teacher in Sananeuli Primary School under the D.I. of Schools, Champua. He expired on 27.6.1999 while in service. The Tahasildar submitted a report to the District Collector that the petitioner has some agricultural land and the annual income from the said land is Rs. 9000/- and the family had one pucca house having four rooms. There is nothing on record to show as to whether the agricultural income to the tune of Rs. 9000/- was of the petitioner alone or for the other family members also and as to whether the pucca house had been constructed by his father or by his forefather and in case the petitioner is not having sufficient agricultural income whether the distress certificate could be refused only on this ground. In view of the above, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the judgment and order passed by this Court in OJC No.7819 of 2000 in the case of Jyotiranj Chakra v. State of Orissa and others, decided on 18.7.2002 directing the District Collector to issue certificate and it is further submitted that similar direction should be issued in this case. We are afraid no such direction can be issued by this Court. 4. In Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Asha Ramch¬handra Ambekar (Mrs.) & another, AIR 1994 SC 2148 , the Apex Court held that the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised issuing directions straightway as the Courts are required to issue directions for mere consideration of the claim of the employee as straightway direction to appoint a particular person would only put the authority concerned in a piquant situation. The disobedience of the said direction may entail contempt notwithstanding the fact that the appointment etc. may not be warranted as per the Rules. 5. In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. & Anr., Vs. The disobedience of the said direction may entail contempt notwithstanding the fact that the appointment etc. may not be warranted as per the Rules. 5. In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. & Anr., Vs. Dr P. Sambasiva Rao & Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 499 , the Supreme Court held that in a case where the relief of regularization is sought by employees working for a long time on ad hoc basis, it is not desirable for the Court to issue direction for regularization straightway. The proper relief in such cases for issuing direction to the authori¬ty concerned to constitute a Selection Committee to consider the matter of regularization of the ad hoc employees as per the Rules for regular appointment for the reason that the regularization is not automatic, it depends on availability of number of vacancies, suitability and eligibility of the ad hoc appointee and particu¬larly as to whether the ad hoc appointee had an eligibility for appointment on the date of initial as ad hoc and while consider¬ing the case of regularization, the Rules have to be strictly adhered to as dispensing with the Rules is totally impermissible in law. In certain cases, even the consultation with the Public Service Commission may be required, therefore, such a direction cannot be issued. 6. In Government of Orissa & Anr., Vs. Hanichal Roy & Anr., (1998) 6 SCC 626 , the Supreme Court considered the case wherein the High Court had granted the relaxation in service conditions. The Court held that the Court cannot take upon itself the task of the Statutory Authority and only order which Court could have passed was directing the Government to consider relax¬ation itself forming an opinion in view of the statutory provi¬sions as to whether the relaxation was required in the facts and circumstances of the case. Issuing such a direction by the Court is illegal and impermissible. 7. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in A. Umarani Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 112 . 8. In G. Veerappa Pillai Vs. Issuing such a direction by the Court is illegal and impermissible. 7. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in A. Umarani Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 112 . 8. In G. Veerappa Pillai Vs. Raman and Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192 , the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the case for grant of permits under the provi¬sions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, held that High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings of the Transport Authority, but issuing the direction for grant of permits “was clearly in excess of its powers and jurisdiction.” 9. Thus the Court is not competent to issue a direction to the District Collector to grant the distress certificate as the matter is yet to be adjudicated upon by the District Collector after appreciating the evidence to be led by the parties con¬cerned in these regards. 10. In view of the above, the order impugned is set aside. The matter is remanded to District Collector, Keonjhar to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. He shall dispose of the same expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. I agree. Ordered accordingly.