Orissa High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 11 To July 17, 2022

1. State of Odisha & Ors. v. Radhakanta Tripathy & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 109

2. Gobardhan Gadaba @ Gadava v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 110

3. Naba Krishna Mahapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 111

4. Kishore Bira v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 112

5. M/s. Patel Brothers & Co., Sambalpur v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 113

Judgments/Orders Reported This Week:

1. Human Rights Commission Can Only 'Recommend' Compensation U/S 18 Of Protection Of Human Rights Act: Orissa High Court

Case Title: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Radhakanta Tripathy & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 109

The Orissa High Court held that Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 empowers Human Rights Commission only to 'recommend' and not to direct compensation. Notably, the Section provides for steps to be taken by the Commission "during and after inquiry". A Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha observed,

"Section 18 provides for steps during and after inquiry. As aforesaid there was omission by the Commission to conduct inquiry and as such section 18 could not be invoked by it for any of the steps to be taken thereunder. Having said that, the provision only empowers the Commission to recommend."

2. No Legal Mandate That Two Years Must Be Added To Outer Age Limit Determined By 'Ossification Test': Orissa High Court

Case Title: Gobardhan Gadaba @ Gadava v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 110

The Orissa High Court held that there is no law that two years mandatorily be added to the outer limit of age as determined by 'ossification test'. While rejecting an argument to that effect, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,

"…there is no law which mandates that in each and every case two years have to be added to the outer age limit determined by the ossification test. It would rather be prudent for the Court to accept the higher range of the age determined by the ossification report which, in the instant case is 16 years."

3. Bar Against 'Inter-District Transfer' Not Applicable To Govt Teachers With Disabilities: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Naba Krishna Mahapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 111

In an important decision, which can be tagged as a remarkable quantum leap in the field of disability jurisprudence, the Orissa High Court held that bar against 'inter-district transfer' cannot be made applicable to teachers who are recognised as persons with disabilities. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed,

"Hence, it may be concluded that the bar under 1977 rules for inter district transfer shall not be applicable on a person with disability. Moreover, in view of provision of Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, read with the Govt. Notification (supra) permits inter district transfer of a person with disability."

4. NDPS Act | Possession Not Proved Merely By Sitting In Vehicle From Which Contraband Is Seized: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Kishore Bira v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 112

The High Court held that a person merely sitting in a vehicle from which contrabands were seized does not necessarily point to the fact that the said person had possession of those contrabands. While granting bail to the petitioner, who was booked under the NDPS Act and detained for being found from a vehicle which carried ganja, a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi placed heavy reliance on the observations made in Avtar Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, wherein the Apex Court had reached a similar conclusion.

5. "Tobacco & Tobacco Products" In Schedule To Odisha Entry Tax Act Include 'Bidi': Orissa High Court

Case Title: M/s. Patel Brothers & Co., Sambalpur v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 113

The Orissa High Court held that 'bidi' comes under the purview of "tobacco and tobacco products" as provided under Entry 16, Part I of the Schedule to the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 ('OET Act'). A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed,

"Although learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that under Entry 31 'cigarette and lighter' is a separate item and therefore unless there is a separate entry for 'bidi' it would not be amenable to entry tax in terms of the OET Act, the Court is unable to agree with the above contention. The expression 'tobacco and tobacco products' is wide enough to include 'bidi'..."