Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34636 (ORI)

KUSUMA CHHATOI v. MEMBER, RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,BBSR

WP(C)/10730/2018 · 2025-07-29

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10730 of 2018 Kusuma Chhatoi & Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. S.K. Pani, Advocate -versus- Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, BBSR & Anr. …. Opp. Parties Mr. S. Panda, CGC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 29.07.2025 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.11.05.2018 so passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.288 of 2015. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioners’ application to cross- examine I.O of the GRPO, Sakhigopal was rejected. 4. It is contended that on the face of the application filed by the Petitioners under Annexure-2, the Tribunal rejected the same without proper appreciation vide order dtd.11.05.2018 under Annexure-3. 4.1. Mr. S. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties on the other hand contended that since p. 2 p. 2 the I.O of the case was never examined, the petition filed by the Petitioners to cross-examine the I.O is completely misconceived. 4.2. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order has been rightly passed. 5. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner also fairly contended that the I.O. at no point of time was examined. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and the fact that the I.O of the case was never examined as a witness, as per the considered view of this Court the prayer made to cross-examine him vide Annexure-2 was not at all entertainable. 6.1. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dtd.11.05.2018 so passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.288 of 2015 and is not inclined to interfere with the same. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat