CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2015) 07 OHC CK 0070

Laxman Kumar Sahoo vs Chairman-cum-Managing Director O.S.R.T.C. and Others

Orissa High Court · Decided on 14 July 2015 · Citation: (2015) 2 OLR 478

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.R. Sarangi, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 7204 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 318 words

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J—Heard Mr. K.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1.

2.

The petitioner files this petition assailing the order dated 18.4.2009 rejecting the review petition filed by him without assigning any reasons.

3.

Mr. K.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner states that against the order of dismissal though the petitioner has preferred review application vide Annexure-8 indicating the latches on the part of the authority, but the authority vide Annexure-9 rejected the same without assigning any reasons.

4.

Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 states that the rejection of the review petition has been made since 18.4.2009 and in the meantime more than six years have elapsed and no useful purpose would be served in the event the authority is directed to reconsider the same.

5.

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the materials available on record, it appears that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, OSRTC has rejected the review application preferred by the petitioner on 18.11.2007 without assigning any reasons. Law is well settled that an administrative authority has to pass a reasoned order while considering the application filed by employee concerned. On perusal of the review application in Annexure-8 filed by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has raised certain questions for recalling the order of dismissal passed against him, which are to be answered by the authority, but while rejecting the review petition, no reasons have been assigned. Therefore, this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2007 in Annexure-9 passed in the review petition and remands the matter back to the said authority to reconsider the review application filed by; the petitioner vide Annexure-8 and pass a reasoned order within a period of three months after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

6.

Issue urgent copy as per Rules.