IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 9959 of 2025 Subhransu Sekhar Debnath & ..... Petitioners Anr. Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate -versus-

The State Level Scrutiny ..... Opposite Parties Committee, Cuttack & Ors. Mr. P. Acharya, AG along with Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

09.05.2025 Order No. 05

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Pursuant to order dtd.08.05.2025, Mr. B. Parameswaran, R.D.C., Central Division, Cuttack appeared in Person and expressed his regret for inconvenience caused to the Court.

3. Heard Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners along with Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel and Mr. P. Acharya, learned Advocate General along with Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp.

Parties.

4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.12.03.2025 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-6.

5. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was before this Court on an earlier occasion in W.P.(C) No. 4774 of 2025. This Court vide order dtd.07.03.2025 while disposing the matter, passed the following order:-

“2. Heard Mr. S.K. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. A.K. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.6.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 18.12.2024 so passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-12.

4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without following the provisions contained under Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023 ( in short “Rules”) and without providing copy of the enquiry report so submitted by the District Vigilance Cell as provided under Rule-7(6) of the Rules, the Committee straight away has passed the impugned order to issue proclamation, inviting objection as provided under Rule-7(14) of the Rules.

4.1. It is contended that the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell on 04.12.2020 was the subject matter of challenge by the petitioner’s sister before this Court in W.P.(C) No.33003 of 2020. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 09.04.2024, the report so submitted by the Vigilance Committee was accepted by the Scrutiny Committee vide the impugned order dated

18.12.2024.

4.2. It is contended that after acceptance of the report so submitted by the Vigilance Cell while complying the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.33003 of 2020 vide order dated 18.12.2024, petitioner should have been issued with a show-cause by enclosing the report along with other documents enclosed to the said report as provided under Rule-7(6) of the Rules. Since the Committee without providing copy of the enquiry report along with all relevant documents enclosed to such report as provided under Rule-7(6) and by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply, has straight away vide the impugned order, directed for issuance of the proclamation as provided under Rule7(14) of the Rules, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.

4.3. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order passed by O.P. No.1 on 18.12.2024 in directing for issuance of the proclamation as provided under Rule 7(14) of the Rules, requires interference of this Court.

5. Even though learned Addl. Standing Counsel as well as Mr. A.K. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.6, supported the impugned order and contended that the petitioner was earlier issued with the show cause along with the report and since such a report was filed under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No.33003 of 2020, petitioner never filed his reply to the show-cause. But since vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2024, the report has been accepted by the Committee, let the petitioner fil