April to June 2013 For PDF.pmd - Orissa High Court

Court
News
17
KAMALA BISWAL & ORS. -V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
W.P.(C) NO.18522 OF 2012 (With Batch) (Dt.24.04.2013)
ODISHA PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (CONTROL) ORDER, 2008 – CLAUSES 6, 7
Petitioners are sub-wholesalers of Kerosene – Government issued instructions not to extend their
licence period – Action challenged – Government took the policy decision to change the three tier system
of distribution i.e. wholesaler, sub-wholesaler and fair price shop retailer – In order to provide superior
quality of Kerosene at a lower price Government decided to abolish the intermediary tier of sub-wholesalership
- So it cannot be said that the Government creates a class amongst class – In the other hand appointment
of sub-wholesaler is not a mandatory requirement under the O.P.D.S. (Control) Order 2008 – Held, in the
absence of materials of mala fides this Court cannot interfere with the policy decision of the Government
and the action of the Government cannot be held to be violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution
of India – Impugned decision of the Government is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary nor discriminatory
– Writ petition is devoid of merit hence dismissed.
(C. R. Dash, J.)
SUDHAKAR NAYAK & ANR.-V- STATE OF ORISSA.
CRLA. NO. 154 OF 2004 (Dt.24.04.2013)
N.D.P.S. ACT, 1985 – S. 20(b) (ii) (c)
Conviction U/s.20 (b) (ii) (c) N.D.P.S. Act - Conviction challenged on the ground that P.W.4 having
conducted search, seizure and arrested the appellants should not have proceeded with the investigation
in order to ensure fair play and impartiality – No provision in the Criminal Procedure Code as well as in
the N.D.P.S. Act which precluded the seizing officer from taking up the investigation – No material to show
that the prosecution against the appellants was initiated as a result of any malice on the Part of P.W.4
– Held, appellants are not entitled to an order of acquittal.
(B. K. Misra, J. )
MANOJ KU. NAYAK & ANR.-V- GUNA MOHANTY & ORS.
W.P.(C) NO.24781 OF 2012 (Dt.25.04.2013)
A. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 – O-39, R-1 & 2
Interim injunction – Court is required to consider prima facie case, balance of convenience and in
convenience irreparable loss so also the conduct of the party while considering interim order of injunction.
In this Case defendant Nos.4 and 5 claim title and possession over Lot No.II property which were
executed on 4.2.1986, 17.2.1997 and 7.3.2001 – In the mean time multi-storied buildings have been
constructed on a part of the suit land and apartments of the building have been sold to a number of
persons who are in possession – So in view of the sale made long back and entries made in the ROR
and lands having been converted in OLR proceedings it cannot be held that the plaintiff has established
a prima facie case – The entries in the ROR and construction of multistoried building have titled balance
of convenience in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 – Any interference with such balance shall result
inconvenience and irreparable loss to the defendants 4 & 5 – Moreover the plaintiff has slept over her right
for a long period and filed the suit in the year 2012 so her conduct does not permit any equitable relief
in her favour – Held, the impugned order of status quo relating to the lands under suit Schedule Lot No.II
is not sustainable – Order passed by both the Courts below so far it relates to maintenance of status
quo over the lands under suit Schedule Lot No.II is set aside.