KULAMANI DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE inaction on the part of the Divisional Forest Officer, Dehenkanal (opp. party No. 2) in not disposing of his representation (Annexure -2) has brought the petitioner to this Court.

(2.) THOUGH a lengthy counter has been filed showing that the petitioner has no case on merits, nothing has been said as to why the concerned officer to whom the representation was addressed did not think it proper to pass any order on receiving the representation. We do not appreciate this indifference of the concerned officer. It is. however, submitted by the learned Addl, Government Advocate that for the reasons stated in the counter, it is obvious that there is no merit in the representation and as such, opp party No. 2 was light in not granting relief claimed by way of the representation, in our view the sub mission is misconceived. If a representation is filed and if in the opinion of the officer, it contains some erroneous facts or a claim which is unfounded or which cannot be granted, there is no reason why the concerned officer cannot dispose of the representation by passing an .appropriate order. 'Disposing of' a representation does not mean to allow it. To 'dispose of means to determine the fate of or to exercise finally one's powers of control over it; to claim what is to be. To dispose of an application or representation would, therefore, mean to consider and decide it naturally on merits. In other words, it means that the concerned officer/authority should apply his/its mind to the contents and to decide it fairly and in accordance with law. In simple words 'to dispose of would mean to decide one way or the other. We hope that the concerned Divisional Forest Officer would, in the light of the observations, dispose of the representation dated 27 -10 -1995 filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from to -d3y. We, however, express no opinion on the merits of the case and the authority is free to apply his mind and pass appropriate order thereon.