JAGANNATH AGARWALLA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for leave to appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution against a decision dated 16th November 1955 of this Court in O. J. C. 401 of 1954. The petitioner alleges that he started business In January 1943 at the instance of the ex-Ruler of Mayurbhanj. The business was running in the name of Indian chemical Products, the main purpose being manufacture of industrial alcohol and essential oils. It was agreed between the petitioner and the ex-Ruler of Mayurbhanj that each would contribute a moiety towards the capital of the business and each would have to suffer half the loss, if any, in the business. The petitioner further alleges that after the merger of the State of Mayurbhanj within the State of Orissa, the business had to be closed as the petitioner had suffered considerable loss. Under the provisions of the Administration of Mayurbhanj State Order, 1949, the petitioner laid his claim against the State of Mayurbhanj on 24th March 1949 before the Sub-divisional Officer Baripada, who was appointed as the Claims officer Under the aforesaid Order. The Claims Officer eventually recommended that the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,37,775/13/7 1/2 with interest at four per cent per annum and submitted his report to the Administrator of the state, that is, the then Revenue Commissioner, Orissa, for confirmation of the report under Clause 9 (g) of the Order. The petitioner, however, received a letter dated 28th June 1952 issued by the deputy Secretary Board of Revenue, Orissa, informing him that claim had been rejected by the Government as barred by limitation. He was, however, never allowed a hearing by the Administrator appointed under the provisions of the aforesaid Order before his claim was rejected on the point of limitation. The petitioner, therefore, filed O. J. C. 401/ 54 praying for appropriate writ directing the opposite parties, that is the State of Orissa and the Board of revenue, Orissa, to give effect to the decision of the Claims Officer and to quash the order of the Administrator as being vitiated by error apparent on the face of it and being against the principles of natural Justice.

(2.) THE two main grounds which were pressed by Mr. Mohapatra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while arguing the O. J. C. , were: (i) that the decision of the Claims Officer should have gone to the Board of Revenue as such and not disposed of by a Single Member; and (ii) that the petitioner should have been served with a notice by the board of Revenue before his claim was rejected on the point of limitation, and, as such, the order is illegal and without Jurisdiction and it must be quashed. A Bench of this Court consisting of Panigrahi, C. J. and my learned brother Rao, J. , having heard both parties at length, passed a full dressed judgment on 16th November 1955 rejecting the contentions of Mr. Mohapatra. Leave to appeal is prayed for against this judgment of the Court.

(3.) IT will be pertinent at the outset to quote Article 133 (1) (a) and (a):