Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 584 (ORI)

Tomala Sahu v. State of Orissa

2019-09-16

BISWANATH RATH

body2019
ORDER : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. Heard Sri B.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties. 2. This writ petition involves a challenge to the order at Annexure-3. 3. Referring to the powers of the Orissa State Commission for Women, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that for the restricted power of the Commission under Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 10(3) of the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993, the Commission has no power of directing recovery of dowry article and also authorizing the complainant to collect the house rent from the tenant for her livelihood. It is in the circumstance, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for interference in the order at-Annexure-3 and setting aside the same. 4. On issuing notice, the contesting O.Ps. 3 to 6 have appeared. Learned counsel appearing for them have no dispute to the position involving the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 but however, taking this Court to the nature of complaint contended that for an Act being framed empowering the Commission to work for the purpose, there should not be any restriction on the Commission in issuing direction in the manner involving Annexure-3. 5. Learned State Counsel also has no objection to the restrictions involving the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 but however taking this Court to the facts involved herein and the problem faced by the complainant therein contended that the direction involved since in a way to benefit the complainant deprived by her husband and her family members, the same need not be interfered with. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court through the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 finds Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 10(3) of the Act finds, the Commission has the following powers:- "10.(1) The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court through the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 finds Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 10(3) of the Act finds, the Commission has the following powers:- "10.(1) The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions. Commission, namely: "XXX XXX XXX (d) receive complaints on" (i) atrocities on women and offences against women, (ii) deprivation of women of their rights relating to minimum 'wages basic health and maternity rights, (iii) non-compliance of Policy decisions of the Government relating to women, (iv) rehabilitation of deserted and destitute women and woman forced into prostitution, (v) atrocities on women in custody and take up with authorities concerned for appropriate remedial measures, XXX XXX XXX (3) The Commission shall while investigating any matter referred to in clause (a) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) have all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and, in particular, in respect of the following matters, namely: "(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any par of India and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witness and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed." Reading the aforesaid provisions, this Court finds, the Commission has the only power to receive complaint under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act and further to investigate the matter under Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Act and for the limited role of the Commission involving Section 10(1)(a), it has to refer its recommendation on the basis of such investigation for the action being taken by the competent authority. In view of the limited scope under the provision of the Act, 1993, this Court finds, the direction given by the Commission under Annexure-3 is without competency of the Commission. 7. In the circumstance, this Court declaring the direction involving Annexure-3 as bad in law for being contrary to the provision contained in Section 10 of the Act, 1993 sets aside the same. 8. The writ petition succeeds.