Kedarnath Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

Heard Mr. P.K. Pasayat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Pattnaik, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition making innocuous prayer seeking direction to opposite party no.2 to take appropriate action by giving suggestion to opposite party no.3 against opposite party no.4 for the illegality committed by him, as per the inquiry report under Annexure-2.

Mr. P.K. Pasayat, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since opposite party no.4 has committed gross illegality and irregularity, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation to initiate proceeding against opposite party no.4.

Mr. J.P. Pattnaik, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that since the petitioner claims for initiation of proceeding against opposite party no.4, which is coming under the purview of service matter, the writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation is not maintainable.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner has approached this Court to take action against opposite party no.4 for the illegality and irregularity committed by him. Since on the basis of the inquiry report, action has not been taken, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. But fact remains, since the petitioner claims for initiation of proceedings against opposite party no.4 for the illegalities committed by him, on the basis of the inquiry report, the writ petition, in the nature of public interest litigation, may not lie. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of.

…………………………………