January to March 2013 for PDF.pmd - Orissa High Court

24CourtNewsODISHA LAND REFORMS (GENERAL) RULES, 1965 – RULE 30 (2).Notice in ceiling proceeding – Proceeding against five persons including the petitioner as Class-Iheir of the deceased land holder – Notice not issued in the name of the petitioner – Violation of naturaljustice – Issuance of notice to any one of the heirs cannot be treated as sufficient compliance of themandate of the Rule – Allegation that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceeding – Held, provisionof Rule 30 (2) of the Rules being mandatory in nature, mere knowledge of the proceeding by a personinterested cannot be a justification for dispensing with service of notice.( B. K. Nayak, J. )USHADEVI SUKHANI-V- CUTTACK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.13932 OF 2012 (Dt.30.01.2013)ODISHA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT,Allotment of residential plots at “Bidanasi Project Area “ – Delay in making construction – Violationof Clause in the Brochure – Show Cause notice issued calling upon the allottee for cancellation ofallotment/resumption of land – Action challenged.Clause mentioned in the Brochure are not statutory in nature – Cancellation of allotment if thereis negligence on the part of the allote and the reasons assigned in the show cause are not bona fide –Action being drastic in nature, should not be done mechanically – Held, cancellation of allotment shouldbe adopted as a last resort – Fresh directions issued along with the directions issued in W.P.(C) No.20924of 2009.(M. M. Das, J.)SARAT CHANDRA DAS -V- ORISSA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION.W.P.(C) NO.8628 OF 2011 (Dt.30.01.2013)SERVICE LAW – Continuance of disciplinary proceeding against petitioner after retirement – Petitioneran employee in Odisha State Warehousing Corporation and he is governed under Odisha State WarehousingCorporation (Staff) Regulations 1985 – No specific provision in the Regulation for continuance of departmentalproceeding after retirement – Held, disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is quashed – Directionissued for payment of retrial benefits to him forthwith.( M. M. Das, J & B. K. Misra, J.)MIDEAST INTEGRATED STEELS LTD. & ORS.-V- STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.CRLMC. NO.3684 OF 2010 (Dt.04.02.2013)CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – S.482.Complaint Case – Cognizance taken U/ss. 406, 468, 420, 422,34 I.P.C. – Dispute is basically Civilin nature – No prima facie material to find out that the offences for which cognizance taken have beencommitted in the instant case – Continuance of Criminal Proceeding will be nothing but an abuse of theprocess of law – Held, order taking cognizance as well as the complaint proceeding quashed.( M. M. Das, J.)