SHIVSANKAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
STATE OF ODISHA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner Shivsankar Mohanty has filed this writ petition by way of a Public Interest Litigation seeking direction to
the opp. party no.1 State of Odisha represented through its
Principal Secretary, Home Department to follow the procedure of
law in accordance with the provisions of section 3(4) of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereafter '1952 Act') in laying
the inquiry report of Hon'ble Justice (retd.) C.R. Pal Commission
before the Legislature of the State of Odisha.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the Government of Odisha on 11.03.2008 appointed Hon'ble Justice (retd.) C.R.
Pal as the single member Commission to look into feasibility and
desirability of Orissa High Court Bench outside its location at
Cuttack. On 31.05.2014 Hon'ble Justice Pal submitted his report
to the Government. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of
the public importance in the matter, the State Government
without examining the report expeditiously and without taking
any action promptly kept the report pending for years together.
It is the further case of the petitioner that he made an
application under the Right to Information Act , 2005 to the
Public Information Officer (PIO) of the opp. party no.3 i.e.
Special Secretary, Law Dept., Government of Odisha on the
inquiry report of Hon'ble Justice Pal Commission but he was
supplied with information, inter alia, that since the report had
not been laid before the Legislative Assembly, it is to be treated
as exempted category of information and cannot be supplied
unless a final decision is taken. It is the further case of the
petitioner that in view of section 3(4) of the 1952 Act, the
Government shall cause the inquiry report to be laid before the
Legislature of the State together with a memorandum of action
taken thereon, within a period of six months of the submission of
the report by the Commission to the Government. The petitioner
in person argued the matter and reiterated the averments taken
in the writ petition and placed reliance in the case of Fazalur
Rehman -Vrs.- State of U.P reported in A.I.R. 1999
Supreme Court 3460.
(3.) Mr. Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the opposite parties on the other hand
submitted that the section 3(4) of 1952 Act is not mandatory
and therefore, reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.