SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Y.K. Sabharwal and G.P. Mathur, JJ.

SLP (C) No. 12943 of 2005, From the Judgment and Order dated 12-4-2005 in WP No. 4149 of 2005 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. D/d. 18.7.2005.

Prabir Kumar Das - Petitioner

Versus

State of Orissa and others - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate (Rajan Mani and Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advocates.

Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 32 - PIL - Pleading - PIL seeking payment of compensation to the victim/parents/aggrieved family as one Pratap Naik, despite order of acquittal by the High Court, was released after expiry of eight years - A perusal of the writ petition filed before the High Court gives an impression that it was filed merely on reading of a newspaper without making an effort to find out any facts - Dismissal of writ petition in such state of pleadings held to be proper - However, petitioner permitted to file a proper petition with requisite pleadings and materials.

[Para 1]

ORDER

Y.K. Sabharwal, J. - The High Court, in the impugned order, has made observations that the petitioner who was an advocate was a stranger and no relief could be granted at his instance. These observations seem to have been in the light of absence of proper pleadings in the writ petition. The writ petition in public interest was filed seeking directions against the State of Orissa for payment of compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the victim/parents/aggrieved family as one Pratap Naik, despite order of acquittal by the High Court, was released after expiry of eight years. A perusal of the writ petition filed before the High Court gives an impression that it was filed merely on reading of a newspaper without making an effort to find out any facts from Pratap Naik or his family.

2. Mr. Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that, in fact, the petitioner who is an advocate of Orissa made enquiries, went to the village of Pratap Naik and even wrote letters including a letter to this Court. Unfortunately, none of these facts are mentioned in the writ petition filed before the High Court and, for that reason, at the threshold the writ petition was dismissed observing that Pratap Naik himself could approach the Court for relief, if so advised. Finding no infirmity in the approach of the High Court on the basis of the petition of the like which was filed, we, while dismissing the special leave petition, permit filing of a proper petition before the High Court which would be decided on its own merits, without being influenced by the order under challenge.

.