JUSTICE C.R. DASH
In this case, writ petitions were brought before the Court by Advocates who after years of service aspired to be conferred with the designation of “Senior Advocate”, wherein while the process of conferring such a designation was enumerated under Rule-6 of High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019(“2019 Rules”), the Full Court conferred the designation of “Senior Advocate” on five Advocates, who are Opposite Party Nos. 5 to 9.
The question before the Court was of the validity of sub-rule(9) of Rule-6 of 2019 Rules and whether the same was in consonance with the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising v.. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766. To decide on the same, the Court delved into the Indira Jaising case in detail and found that earlier there were no uniform rules for conferring designation of “Senior Advocates’’ and High Courts were following different rules. There was also no proper rule on the subject for the Supreme Court. Holding the designation as only a distinction and a recognition, the Court was of the view that sub-rule (9) of Rule- 6 of “2019 Rules” was an addition beyond the scope of the guidelines/norms framed in Indira Jaising case. Therefore, sub-rule (9) of Rule- 6 of the 2019 Rules was held not to be in consonance with the said Judgment and ultravires of the guidelines/norms. However, despite these observations, the Court didn’t strike down the rule.
In this case, the Petitioner’s husband had purchased a plot under Cuttack Development Authority (CDA) in 2001 and the petitioner inherited a plot under CDA from her father 10 years after purchase of the plot by the husband. The petitioner intended to sell the land inherited by her to supplement the cost of treatment of cancer, however, the sale of the plot was not allowed by CDA as they deemed it to be a case of ‘Double Allotment’.
The Court observed that there was no dispute that CDA being the Development Authority had paramount control over the transfer of land within the project area under the Odisha Development Authority Act, however, it noted that the Property-plot purchased by the petitioner’s husband was by choice and the property-plot inherited by the petitioner was by chance in which she had no choice to deny the succession as it was automatic with immediate effect. Thus, the Court held that it would not constitute as ‘Double Allotment’.
The Court held that the transfer of the plot by the petitioner could not be resisted on the ground that both the petitioner and her husband were holding two plots in CDA, Bidanasi. The Court also noted that the “Petitioner having no other alternative source, is ready to part her property she had inherited from her father, and it must have been a painful decision also.” Hence, the Writ application was allowed with a direction to CDA to accord permission.