Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1248 (ORI)

Dinabandhu Pruthal v. State of Orissa

2017-11-02

BISWANATH RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. As per the earlier order of this Court dated 31.20.2017, Sri A.S. Nandy, learned counsel for the petitioners confined this writ petition to the developments through Annexures6, 7, 9, 10, 11 & 12. These are all developments involving a proceeding initiated under the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules. 2. Referring to the impugned order appearing at Annexure-11 and the fresh issuance of caste certificate, vide Annexure-12, Sri A.S. Nandy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the Misc. Certificate Case No.2099/2007 was remanded by the appellate authority, vide Anenxure-9 with specific direction for fresh consideration in the matter of issuance of caste certificate in favour of O.P.4, the Tahasildar, Udala being the original authority was duty-bound to have a fresh consideration of the whole issue and deciding the matter involved assigning reason. Taking this Court through the order passed by the original authority under Annexure-11, Sri Nandy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tahasildar while disposing the Misc. Certificate Case No.2099/2007 afresh following the direction contained in Annexure-9 has simply recorded the materials available for consideration and straightway jumped to the conclusion thereby directing issue of caste certificate without assigning any reason. Sri Nandy further submitted that even though a provision of appeal is provided under the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules but for no reason assigned by the Tahasildar in disposal of the original proceeding, the petitioners find no scope for raising any ground in the appeal and in any event, the appellate authority will only be required to consider whether the impugned orders has any valid reason/ground or not, which aspect can also be gone into by this Court looking to the wastage of time in the meantime and taking into consideration that this Court entertained the matter in 2012 and the matter being taken up for final hearing in 2017. It is under this circumstance, Sri Nandy requested this Court that instead of asking the petitioners to file appeal, the matter should be decided by this Court. 3. Sri S. Mishra, learned counsel for O.P.4 taking this Court to the appeal provision under the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules submitted that since the petitioners have a statutory remedy of appeal, this Court should decline to entertain the writ petition and ask the petitioners to prefer an appeal. 4. 3. Sri S. Mishra, learned counsel for O.P.4 taking this Court to the appeal provision under the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules submitted that since the petitioners have a statutory remedy of appeal, this Court should decline to entertain the writ petition and ask the petitioners to prefer an appeal. 4. Sri U.K. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has also the support of the stand taken by the learned counsel for O.P.4. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, this writ petition involves Misc. Certificate Case No.2099/2007 where the O.P.4 requested for grant of a caste certificate in his favour. This proceeding was concluded dismissing the case by the Tahasildar, vide Annexure-7. An appeal being carried under Annexure-8, the appeal was disposed of, vide Annexure-9 with the following direction :- “…….In view of the above findings of the Sub-Collector, Kaptipada I do not find any reason why the appellant will not be issued with a Caste Certificate being his sub-caste “MALA”. With the above observations and findings the order dated 31.10.07 passed in Misc. Certificate (Caste) Case No.2099/07 which is under challenge in this appeal is quashed & accordingly the appeal is allowed and remitted back to the court below for consideration afresh.” 6. Reading of the aforesaid order makes no doubt that though the appeal though succeeded but with an order of remand with a specific direction to the Tahasildar to have a fresh consideration of the matter. Further it appears, the proceeding being taken up afresh, a report was called for and the Sub-Collector, Kaptipada also submitted a report, vide Annexure-10. Taking this Misc. Certificate Case for final adjudication, the Tahasildar allowed the Misc. Certificate Case, vide Annexure-11. Perusal of the order at Annexure-11 simply indicates recording of the direction of the Collector in the appeal and availability of a report and straightway jumping to a direction for issuing caste certificate in favour of O.P.4. The certificate under Annexure-12 is as a consequence of the order involving Annexure-11. 7. Certificate Case, vide Annexure-11. Perusal of the order at Annexure-11 simply indicates recording of the direction of the Collector in the appeal and availability of a report and straightway jumping to a direction for issuing caste certificate in favour of O.P.4. The certificate under Annexure-12 is as a consequence of the order involving Annexure-11. 7. Considering the submission of Sri Nandy, learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order bears no ground leaving no scope for raising any ground by the petitioners in the appellate forum and further taking into consideration that this case was entertained by this Court as back as on 27.8.2012 and further considering that even the quasi judicial authorities are also required to not only deal with the case of parties but are also required to assign reason in finally deciding the matters to provide a scope to be parties aggrieved to have a process of appeal raising particular grounds. This Court finds, for loss of time and as it is apparent from the impugned order that the said order does not bear any ground as well as no discussion even on the subject involved, this Court instead of directing the petitioners to prefer appeal rather inclined to decide the matter at this stage. Under the circumstance, interfering with the impugned order, vide Annexure-11, this Court sets aside the same and remands the matter to the Tahasildar with a direction that the Tahasildar shall re-dispose of the original proceeding giving scope of hearing to both sides and deciding the matter afresh assigning reasons. The parties are directed to appear before the Tahasildar, Udala on 28.11.2017 and the matter involved in Misc. Certificate Case No.2099/2007 will be concluded within two months thereafter. The writ petition succeeds. No cost.