1. State of Odisha & Ors. v. Radhakanta Tripathy & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 109

2. Gobardhan Gadaba @ Gadava v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 110

3. Naba Krishna Mahapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 111

4. Kishore Bira v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 112

5. M/s. Patel Brothers & Co., Sambalpur v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 113

6. Chinta Marandi @ Chintamani Marandi v. State of Orissa, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 114

7. Pradeep Kumar Sethy v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 115

8. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors. v. Regional Director (E), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Kolkata & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 116

Judgments/Orders Reported This Month:

1. Human Rights Commission Can Only 'Recommend' Compensation U/S 18 Of Protection Of Human Rights Act: Orissa High Court

Case Title: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Radhakanta Tripathy & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 109

The Orissa High Court held that Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 empowers Human Rights Commission only to 'recommend' and not to direct compensation. Notably, the Section provides for steps to be taken by the Commission "during and after inquiry". A Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha observed,

"Section 18 provides for steps during and after inquiry. As aforesaid there was omission by the Commission to conduct inquiry and as such section 18 could not be invoked by it for any of the steps to be taken thereunder. Having said that, the provision only empowers the Commission to recommend."

2. No Legal Mandate That Two Years Must Be Added To Outer Age Limit Determined By 'Ossification Test': Orissa High Court

Case Title: Gobardhan Gadaba @ Gadava v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 110

The Orissa High Court held that there is no law that two years mandatorily be added to the outer limit of age as determined by 'ossification test'. While rejecting an argument to that effect, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,

"…there is no law which mandates that in each and every case two years have to be added to the outer age limit determined by the ossification test. It would rather be prudent for the Court to accept the higher range of the age determined by the ossification report which, in the instant case is 16 years."

3. Bar Against 'Inter-District Transfer' Not Applicable To Govt Teachers With Disabilities: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Naba Krishna Mahapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 111

In an important decision, which can be tagged as a remarkable quantum leap in the field of disability jurisprudence, the Orissa High Court held that bar against 'inter-district transfer' cannot be made applicable to teachers who are recognised as persons with disabilities. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed,

"Hence, it may be concluded that the bar under 1977 rules for inter district transfer shall not be applicable on a person with disability. Moreover, in view of provision of Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, read with the Govt. Notification (supra) permits inter district transfer of a person with disability."

4. NDPS Act | Possession Not Proved Merely By Sitting In Vehicle From Which Contraband Is Seized: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Kishore Bira v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 112

The High Court held that a person merely sitting in a vehicle from which contrabands were seized does not necessarily point to the fact that the said person had possession of those contrabands. While granting bail to the petitioner, who was booked under the NDPS Act and detained for being found from a vehicle which carried ganja, a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi placed heavy reliance on the observations made in Avtar Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, wherein the Apex Court had reached a similar conclusion.

5. "Tobacco & Tobacco Products" In Schedule To Odisha Entry Tax Act Include 'Bidi': Orissa High Court

Case Title: M/s. Patel Brothers & Co., Sambalpur v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 113

The Orissa High Court held that 'bidi' comes under the purview of "tobacco and tobacco products" as provided under Entry 16, Part I of the Schedule to the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 ('OET Act'). A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed,

"Although learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that under Entry 31 'cigarette and lighter' is a separate item and therefore unless there is a separate entry for 'bidi' it would not be amenable to entry tax in terms of the OET Act, the Court is unable to agree with the above contention. The expression 'tobacco and tobacco products' is wide enough to include 'bidi'..."

6. Orissa High Court Releases Convict Under Probation Of Offenders Act In '30 Yrs Old' Attempt To Murder Case

Case Title: Chinta Marandi @ Chintamani Marandi v. State of Orissa

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 114

The Orissa High Court released a person under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ('the P.O. Act') while upholding his conviction for attempt to murder under Section 307, IPC in a '30 years old' case. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,

"…it is seen that the occurrence undoubtedly took place more than 30 years back. The Petitioner was a young man at that point of time, but is now aged nearly 60 years. No criminal antecedents are reported against him. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, ends of justice would be best served if the Petitioner is released as per the provision of Section 4 of the P.O. Act instead of serving the remaining part of the sentence in jail."

7. Orissa High Court Comes Down Heavily On Two Magistrate Courts For Their Inaction Resulting In '9 Yrs Delay' In Remand

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Sethy v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 115

The High Court came down heavily on two Courts of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrates ('SDJM') for their apparent inaction/negligence, which resulted in about 'nine years' delay in grant of custody of accused to the investigating agency. Notably, the accused Pradeep Sethy (CMD of 'Artha Tatwa') stayed in custody for all these years in connection with another case and his application for grant of bail was outrightly rejected as he was never in custody in connection with the instant case. While granting bail, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,

"The lackadaisical manner in which the matter has been dealt with is a case for serious concern as it strikes at certain fundamental pillars of not only criminal procedure but also the Constitutional principles of liberty. This is a classic case where the petitioner, for no fault of his own, was deprived of making a legitimate prayer for being released on bail. Viewed differently, this is a case where the continued inaction of the concerned authority/Courts resulted in serious violation of fundamental right of the petitioner to seek his liberty. Whether bail is to be granted on merits or not is a different question, but to prevent a person from moving for bail and that too, purely on technical grounds is something that cannot meet with the sanction of law."

8. Look Out Circular | Directors Of Company Can't Be Denied 'Right To Travel Abroad' In Absence Of Any Non-Compoundable Offence: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors. v. Regional Director (E), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Kolkata & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 116

The Orissa High Court held that Directors/office bearers of a company cannot be deprived of their fundamental right to visit abroad by issuing Look Out Circular (LOC) when there exists no prima facie non-compoundable offence against them. Further, mere bald allegations, without any rigid substance to substantiate the same, cannot be made basis for issuing LOC. While quashing the LOC issued against the petitioners herein, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath noted,

"There is no complaining of non-cooperation against any of the Petitioners. Further as of now there is no existence of the Petitioners' involvement in any non-compoundable offence. In the circumstance, this Court finds, continuance of LOC may be dangerous, as it had already affected the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners to travel abroad for promotion of their business. The entire inspection is already over and any of the Petitioners movement to abroad can very well be controlled by setting out terms and conditions involving each of the Petitioners."

Important Developments:

• Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Elevation Of 2 Judicial Officers And One Lawyer To Orissa High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium recommended the elevation of one Advocate and two Judicial Officers as Judges in the Orissa High Court. The approval was given in its meeting held on 25th July, 2022. Following names were recommended,

1. Smt. Suman Pattanayak, Advocate

2. Shri Gourishankar Satapathy, and

3. Shri Chitta Ranjan Dash.

• "Unless We Get Lawyers Of Integrity, Can't Expect Judges Of Integrity": CJ Muralidhar Bestows 'Promising Lawyer Of The Year' Award On 22 Advocates

The Orissa High Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar has bestowed 'The Promising Lawyer of the Year Award' upon 22 young District Court lawyers on the occasion of the 75^th Foundation Day of the High Court. While delivering his address, Chief Justice Muralidhar gave a detailed account of the scheme for honouring young district lawyers and hoped that the scheme will encourage more young lawyers to adopt the best legal and ethical practices. He thanked Mr. Gopal Subramanium (Eminent Senior Counsel & former Solicitor General of India) for attending the event and addressing the young legal professionals of Odisha. The CJ went on to remark that a very important element of the scheme is to find lawyers of integrity. "Because unless we get lawyers of integrity, we cannot expect judges of integrity. Because these are lawyers, some of whom will hopefully become judges, judges in District Courts and later may be judges in the High Court," he said.