SHIVSANKAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
LAWS(ORI)-2020-2-11
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on February 10,2020

Shivsankar Mohanty Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

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 entertained.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.