1. Prangya Paramita Harichandan v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 30
2. Amrita Ray v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 31
3. M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. ITAT, 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 32
4. Laxmi Sahu v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 33

Judgments/Orders Reported This Week

‘Horizontal Quota’ For A Particular Social Category Can’t Be Filled By Candidates Of Other Social Category: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Prangya Paramita Harichandan v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 30

The 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 Court

Case Title: Amrita Ray v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 31

The 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 ITAT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 32

The 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 Long

Case Title: Laxmi Sahu v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 33

The 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 Developments

Orissa 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 2019

Taking 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 families.”

Won't Spare Them: Orissa High Court Pulls Up State Education Dept Over "Pathetic" Infrastructure In Schools

Case Title: Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee v. Chief Secretary to Government of Odisha & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 15395 of 2015

The High Court pulled-up the School and Mass Education Department (S&ME), Government of Odisha for lack of basic infrastructure in numerous primary and upper-primary schools of the State. While expressing shock over poor condition of the existing facilities, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Murahari Sri Raman said,

“The photographs attached to the report depicts a dismal picture of the infrastructure, if it at all can be called that, in the said seven schools. Basic amenities like potable drinking water, bench and desk, separate functional toilets for boys and girls, electricity, playground are not available. This is apart from the lack of adequate teachers and drop in the attendance/enrolment rate of students.”

Will Estoppel Apply In Favour Of Person Who Unaware Of Failure In Intermediate Exam Gets Higher Education, Job? Orissa HC Full Bench To Decide

Case Title: Litumanjari Pradhan v. Chairman, Council of Higher Secondary Education

A Full Bench of Orissa High Court comprising Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar, Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman reserved judgment in a reference which was made by a Division Bench to decide the correctness of a decision (Nrusingha Charan Panda v. The Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr., 74 (1992) CLT 350) rendered by another Division Bench wherein it was held that the rule of estoppel will apply in favour of a person who without knowing he has failed in matriculation examination, gets higher educations and joins service.

Orissa High Court Directs State To Furnish List Of Agencies Engaged For Cleaning Of Sewers & Septic Tanks

Case Title: In Re: Deaths of Sanitation Workers v. Chief Secretary & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 14589 of 2021

The Orissa High Court ordered the State to provide the list of agencies engaged on outsourcing basis to clean sewers and septic tanks. It also directed them to indicate in a chart as to whether the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and training manuals have been provided to them and also if those are strictly complied with. While expressing concern over death of workers engaged in sanitation works, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Murahari Sri Raman said:

“The Court wishes to underscore the need to take ‘preventive’ measures so that any deaths in future of persons engaged in cleaning of sewers and septic tanks is avoided.”