DILLIP KUMAR ROUT Vs. ARUN KUMAR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner called in question the adverse remarks passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Panposh at Rourkela in 2 (C) CC Case No.29 of 2006 being unwarranted and uncalled for. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition is that on 5.10.2005 at about 9.30 A.M., the petitioner, who was working as Asst. Director/Inspector of Factories and Boilers Rourkela Zone -II inspected M/s. Delhi Coach Body Builders situated at Rourkela in presence of the owner thereof and found that the factory was running with the aid of 14 persons and 7.5 KW electricity power without obtaining any factory license as required under law. The shed with equipments was being used as a factory, without obtaining prior approval of plan. Since the opp.party refused to comply with the same, notice was sent to him by Regd. Post with A.D. on 11.11.2005 directing him to furnish documents, as per the list therein for grant of registration within 15 days. The petitioner again sent reminders on 25.11.2005 for furnishing requisite documents, but to no effect. So on 10.1.2006 he instituted the aforesaid case against the opp.party, before learned S.D.J.M. Panposh at Rourkela. As an abundant caution, the petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay.

(3.) IN support of his submission, he cited the decision in the case of Tessta Setalvad and another v. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2004 (SC) 1979, wherein the Apex Court held that when the caustic observation made was uncalled for, the High Court ought not have made such observation. He further cited the decision in the case of Prabha Mathur and another v. Pramod Aggarwal and others (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 469, where the Apex Court held that adverse observations imputing mens rea should not be made against a person without issuing notice to him. Admittedly, in the present case, notice was not issued to the petitioner before passing the aforesaid caustic remark. The caustic remarks passed by the learned S.D.J.M. was also not required for just decision of the case.