Orissa High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 27 To March 5, 2023

Nominal IndexPrangya Paramita Harichandan v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 30Amrita Ray v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 31M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. ITAT, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 32Laxmi Sahu v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 33Judgments/Orders Reported This Week‘Horizontal Quota’ For A Particular Social Category Can’t Be Filled By Candidates Of Other Social Category: Orissa High CourtCase Title: Prangya Paramita Harichandan v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 30The Orissa High Court clarified that unlike ‘vertical reservation’ in which principle of mobility is applicable, ‘horizontal reservation’ for a particular social category can only be granted to candidates coming under that social category and not beyond that. For example: horizontal quota meant for unreserved category women cannot be occupied by SC/ST/OBC category women. While simplifying the position of law, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,“…it is evident that the principle of mobility as applicable in case of social (vertical) reservations are not applicable to special (horizontal) reservation. This implies that the special reservations like women etc. have to be confined to their respective social categories.”S. 97 CrPC | Second Application For Search Of Persons Wrongfully Confined Can Be Entertained If New Facts & Circumstances Arise: Orissa High CourtCase Title: Amrita Ray v. State of Odisha & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 31The Orissa High Court clarified that a second application under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not barred by the principle of res judicata and can be entertained if some new facts and circumstances arise warranting intervention. Notably, the Section provides “search for persons wrongfully confined”. While allowing the revision petition filed against the dismissal of a second application under the above provision, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra said,“…in particular, looking at the statutory intent behind enactment of Section 97 of Cr.P.C. it can be safely held that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the filing of the subsequent application cannot be treated as barred by law.”Assesses Failed To File Affidavit Proving Repayment Of Loans: Orissa High Court Sustains Addition On “Unsecured Loan”Case Title: M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd. Versus ITATCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 32The Orissa High Court sustained the addition of unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman observed that the direction issued by the ITAT in the first round was to the effect that the AO should verify whether the assessee had repaid the amount "by calling all the creditors". Therefore, it is the AO who should have issued a summons to them to appear. Even assuming that the AO did not do so, the fact remains that the assessee did not ask for a summons to be issued.Orissa High Court Sets Aside Order Pronounced ‘15 Months’ After Hearing Concluded; Says Authority May Forget Parties' Submissions After So LongCase Title: Laxmi Sahu v. State of Odisha & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 33The Orissa High Court set aside an order by a Revenue Divisional Commissioner which was pronounced 15 months after hearing of the case concluded. Additionally, the Court directed all the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities in the State to abide by the mandate of Order 20 Rule 1, CPC which prescribes time limit for delivery of judgment. While deprecating unreasonable delay in pronouncing verdict, a Single Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath said,“…if such mode is accepted, then disposal of such matters providing opportunity of hearing may not be a requirement and it may be opened to the adjudicatory authority to decide the matter accordingly on the basis of pleadings and objection, if any, of the respective parties, which is never the intention in setting up the Quasi-Judicial authority.”Other DevelopmentsOrissa High Court Orders District Authorities Of Puri To Enquire Alleged Excommunication Of Three Families As ‘Untouchables’Case Title: Sesadeb Subudhi v. State of Odisha & Ors.Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 4600 of 2019Taking a tough stand against the illegal practice of ‘untouchability’, the Orissa High Court ordered the District Social Welfare Officer (DSWO), Puri to make an enquiry into the alleged ousting of three families from their village after being considered as ‘untouchables’. While dictating the order, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Murahari Sri Raman also directed,“Wherever corrective action is needed to be taken the Collector and SP will ensure that it is so taken without waiting for further orders. The machinery of law should be put in motion if the enquiry reveals that untouchability was in fact practised against the victim...

Orissa High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 27 To March 5, 2023

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags