The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for compliance with statutory provisions in the appointment or re-engagement of public officials, as well as the authority responsible for such appointments.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - Challenging the re-engagement of Sri Gopabandhu Satpathy, Opposite Party (OP) No.7, as Managing Director (MD) of the Odisha State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bhubaneswar (OP No.8) by a Notification dated 2nd March, 2002 issued by the General Administration and Public Grievance Department (GA Department), Government of Odisha (OP No.2), the present petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto.

2. The main ground of challenge is that the above re-engagement is in violation of Section 35-B (1) (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (BR Act) as well as Section 28 (3-b) (1) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (OCS Act).

3. In the present petition that was filed on 7th April, 2022, notice was issued by this Court on 21st April, 2022. After pleadings were completed this Court, on 14th September, 2022 set down the petition for final hearing. On that date, Sri A.K. Parija, learned Advocate General (AG) appearing for the State of Odisha (OP Nos.1 and 2), stated that in the meanwhile within two weeks a fresh advertisement would be issued for filling up of the post of the MD of the OP No.8-Bank. On 8th December, 2022 the Court was informed that the said advertisement had been issued on 25th November, 2022 with the last date of submission of the applications being 22nd December, 2022. However, on that date Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that notwithstanding that the post may have been advertised afresh, the continuation of the present incumbent was illegal and since his term was expiring on 28th February 2023, the petition should be heard at an early date. Thereafter, the present petition was heard finally on 17th January, 2023 and judgment was reserved.

4. This Court has heard the submissions of Sri P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri A.K. Parija, learned AG appearing for the State of Odisha (OP Nos.1 and 2), Sri Budhadev Routray and Sri. Gautam Misra, learned Senior Advocates for OP No.7 and Mr. Sunil J. Mathews along with Mr. K.P. Nanda, learned counsel for OP No.8-Bank.

Preliminary objections

5. There were several preliminary objections raised to the maintainability of the present petition as a PIL. The first is that Rule 8 of the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 (HC PIL Rules), which reads as under, has not been complied with by the Petitioner prior to filing of the present petition:

'8. Before filing a PIL, the petitioner must send a representation to the authorities concerned for taking remedial action, akin to what is postulated in Section 80 CPC. Details of such representation and reply, if any, from the authority concerned along with copies thereof must be filed with the petition. However, in urgent cases where making of representation and waiting for response would cause irreparable injury or damage, petition can be filed straightway by giving prior notice of filing to the authorities concerned and/or their counsel, if any.'

6. In countering the above objection, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner, emphasized the later portion of Rule 8 of the HC PIL Rules which permits the PIL petition to be filed straightway without giving prior notice 'in urgent cases, where making of representations and waiting for response would cause irreparable injury or damage'.

7. The present petition was filed on 7th April, 2022 challenging the impugned order dated 2nd March, 2022 issued by the GA Department, Government of Odisha, re-engaging OP No.7 as MD of OP No.8-Bank for a period of one year with effect from 1st March, 2022. From the point of view of the Petitioner, since the legality of the re-engagement was being challenged, the matter was indeed urgent. Nevertheless, on 21st April, 2022 when notice was accepted on behalf of the State, they did not offer to treat the present petition as a representation for the purposes of Rule 8 of the HC PIL Rules and to dispose it of in a time-b