SABYA SACHI PANDA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Rayaguru, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant/petiitioner, who is in custody. He submits, though his client has appplied for change of nomenclature puursuant to report made by thee Stamp Reporter that the writ pettition should be registered as CRLMP but, this Bench under assignnment entry no.1 should deal with the writ petition. The entry is reprooduced below.

(2.) Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additionnal Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, the application for change of nomenclature be allowed and petitioner referred to the Bench havingg assignment. He draws attention to obbservations made in this writ petition on 5/12/2023 by anoother co-ordinate Bench. The observations made in order dtd. 5/12/2023 are reproduceed below.

(3.) We have perused, inter alia, paragraphs 11 too 13 of D. Anita Majhi (supra). The co-ordinate Bench had relied on, inter alia, judgment of the Supreme Court in Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2013)) 1 SCC 314 for declaration thhat unless the writ Court is satisfied a person has been committed too jail custody by virtue of an order that suffers from vice of lack of jurisdiction or absolute illegality, writ of habeas corpus cannoot be issued. Having done so, the co-ordinate Bench was of considdered view that the case before it was not one where a writ of habeas corpus could be issued but petitiooners being poor tribal ladies caused said Bench to exercise extra ordinary power of discretion under article 226 in the Constitution.