The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15567 of 2025 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia …. Petitioner Union of India and others Mr.Tarun Pattnaik, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr.P.K.Parhi, DSGI Mr.S.K.Jee, AGA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No.
Decision
ORDER 13.06.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr.Tarun Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.K.Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India along with Mr.S.S.Kashyap, learned CGC for the Union of India and Mr.Jee, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite. 3. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 4. The present writ application has been filed with the following prayer(s):- Page 1 of 5 “a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the Impugned Final Disposal Order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure-1) passed by the Revisional Authority, Ministry of Mines, Government of India in Revision Application No. 22/49/2022 RC-I; b) ;Further be pleased to direct restoration of Revision Application No. 22/49/2022 RC-I to its original file for hearing and adjudication on merits in accordance with law” 5. On perusal of the wit application, it appears that the petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2025 passed under Annexure-1 by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India thereby rejecting the revision application of the petitioner preferred under section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contended that the impugned order itself reflects that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner-revisionist. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order is an ex parte order and as such, it was urged before this Court that the same may be set aside and another opportunity be given to the petitioner to put-forth his case before the Revisional Authority. He further contended that the notices for hearing at the Revisional Authority are not sent to the Petitioner but to his engaged counsel and as such, the Petitioner was not only unaware of the dates for hearing of the matter, but also that his counsel had not been attending to the matter without intimation to the Revisional Authority. It is only when the final disposal order dated 28.01.2025 was communicated to the Petitioner Page 2 of 5 vide letter dated 28.01.2025 that the Petitioner became aware of the situation. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, seriously objected to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further contended that several opportunities have been given to the petitioner to put-forth his case before the Revisional Authority. However, the petitioner preferred not to appear before the Revisional Authority on several dates and finally the Revisional Authority has passed the aforesaid impugned order under Annexure-1. 7. Learned DSGI for the Union of India, on the other hand, contended that adequate opportunities were given to the petitioner to participate in the hearing before the Revisional Authority in the revision proceeding. However, the petitioner chose not to appear before the Revisional Authority as a result of which the final order was passed on 28.01.2025. In such view of the matter, learned DSGI contended that the prayer for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-1 needs no indulgence and accordingly he prays to dismiss the writ petition in limine. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on a careful examination of the materials available on record and on a close scrutiny of the impugned rejection order under Annexure-1, this Court thinks it proper that opportunity of hearing should have been provided to the petitioner while passing the impugned order, which is an ex parte order. Further, this Court observes that although the petitioner has given explanation with regard to his non-appearance before the Revisional Authority, however, the same falls under the satisfaction this Court. In any Case, this Court is of the view that the sound judicial process Page 3 of 5 demands that opportunity be given to the parties before passing any final order particularly when a final order likely to affect the rights of the parties. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are of the view that another opportunity should be provided to the petitioner to put-forth his case before the Revisional Authority and at the same time, this Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner did not appear before the Revisional Authority, although we refrain ourselves from commenting anything at this stage with regard to the intention of the petitioner for his non-appearance before the Revisional Authority. It is also the settled position of law that the prejudice caused to the opposite party due to such non-appearance can very-well be compensated by awarding monetary compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also expresses his consent that the petitioner shall be abide by any of the condition to be imposed by this Court in the event another opportunity is given to him to appear before the Revisional Authority. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact and circumstances and further keeping in view the sound legal practices and further taking note of the other material on record, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order under Annexure-1. The same is hereby quashed. Further, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Revisional Authority within a period of two weeks from today with a certified copy of this order. In such eventuality, the Revisional Authority shall provide an opportunity to the petitioner and make an endeavour to dispose of the revision of the petitioner within e period of two months from the date of communication of this order. Since this Court came to a conclusion that the order passed by the Revisional Authority is an ex parte order for the absence of the Page 4 of 5 petitioner and this Court has also expressed that the grounds indicated by the petitioner is not satisfactory with regard to his non-appearance before the Revisional Authority, this Court imposes a cost of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) on the petitioner to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, Cuttack within a period of fifteen days from today. Accordingly, the final disposal order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexuer- 1) is quashed subject to payment of cost as directed above and the matter is remitted to the Revisional Authority to proceed with strictly in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (A.K. Mohapatra) Vacation Judge (M.S. Raman) Vacation Judge Signature Not Verified Basu Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 13-Jun-2025 19:05:38 Page 5 of 5