The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a legal injury and locus standi to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution and enforce a statutory duty.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the State authorities to put Opposite Party No. 5 under suspension and further to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him for ill-treating his domestic servant who committed suicide and in pursuance of the reporting made by the Petitioner, a criminal prosecution has been lodged against him.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Petitioner claims himself to be a Pressman and a social activist and is publisher of a local Oriya newspaper in the name and style "Saitan" at Patnagarh. He reported a news-item that a Class-IV ill-health employee was being harassed and exploited by his superior officer intentionally and deliberately. Therefore, due to exploitation the said employee committed suicide leaving a suicidal hand note. An FIR was lodged and Opposite Party No. 5 was arrested by the local police and was inside the custody for at least one week. However, no disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against him nor he was suspended as per O.C.S. (CCA.) Rules, which required that under the said Rules a Government servant who is detained in custody whether on criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention by an order of the appointing authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders. Hence this petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the requirement of law, Opposite Party No. 5 ought to have been suspended and disciplinary proceedings ought to have been initiated against him and this Curt must ask the Opposite Parties-authorities to explain their conduct as under what circumstances the disciplinary proceedings have not been initiated against the Opposite Party No. 5.

4. The matter was heard earlier on 19th March, 2009 and as the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was not able to satisfy the Court regarding the locus-standi of the Petitioner, the case was adjourned for 24th March, 2009. Even on that date adjournment was sought to prepare this case and therefore it was listed 30th March, 2009. Even on that date also Learned Counsel for the Petitioner asked for time to prepare the case further, but we refused to accede to the request as the petition should be filed after preparing the case and in spite of fact that matter had been adjourned twice to facilitate the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner to answer the quarry regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition itself.

5. We have heard the matter at length and perused the record.

6. In this petition, the Petitioner claims himself to be a public spirited person and he is a publisher of a local newspaper in the name and style "Saitan" which means "devil". However, we are not concerned with its name or about the newspaper or about the Petitioner. But in a case like this, the Court has to examine the bona fide of the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was not able to render any assistance as under what circumstances or what authority Petitioner has approached this Court.

7. It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order etc. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing the statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the Petitioner that there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the Respondents. Therefore, there must be judicially enforceable right for the enforcement on which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of the said right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction. (Vide The State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta, ; Saghir Ah