HARIHAR BHATA MISHRA Vs. SOMANATH DAKUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, the employees of the N.A.C. Bellaguntha, District Ganjam, in this revision application have challenged the order dated 14-8-1986 of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhanjanagar in case ICC No. 32 of 1986 taking cognisance for offences u/ Ss. 447, 427 and 379, IPC.

(2.) The sole opposite party, the complainant in the court below had filed the complaint petition before the learned S.D.J.M. on the allegation that he had lawfully obtained settlement of a piece of land in the N.A.C. area, that petitioner No. 1 the, Executive Officer, of the N.A.C. issued a notice to him on 27-5-86 for demolition of the structure standing thereon, that he preferred an appeal before the A.D.M. Ganjam, that in spite of the patta shown to petitioner No. 1, all the petitioners under the direction of petitioner No. 1 demolished the structure on 9-6-86. The opposite party is said to have approached the Bellaguntha Out-post but as police took no action he approached the S.D.J.M. with the complaint petition. The learned S.D.J.M. after an enquiry u/ S. 202, Cr. P.C. took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. The petitioners filed a petition before the learned S.D.J.M. on the maintainability of the case and by the impugned order rejected the prayer and fixed the case to 14-7- 86 for hearing.

(3.) The core point that was urged before me by Mr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners being public servants working under the N.A.C. of Bellaguntha, no cognisance of the offence could have been taken against them without prior sanction and prior notice as required u/ Ss. 349 and 376 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (for short the 'Act'). Reliance is also placed on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rama Chandra Sahu v. G. Baisakh (1987) 63 CLT 546 in which it was held that the Executive Officer of the N. A. C. is a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government he being an officer of the Administrative service. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners require careful scrutiny.