The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.160 of 2025 In the matter of an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Registrar General of the Hon‟ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack and others ....... Petitioners -Versus- Malaya Ranjan Dash and another ....... Opposite Parties For the Petitioners: - Mrs. Pami Rath (Senior Advocate) Mr. Pratyasish Mohanty Advocate For the Opp. Party No.1: - Mr. Budhadev Routray (Senior Advocate) Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate For the Opp. Party No.2: - Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 01.09.2025 Date of Judgment: 17.09.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 of 53 S.S. Mishra, J. Although the petitioners in the present Review Petition have assailed the final judgment of this Court dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.28874 of 2023, however, prayer is being made by the petitioners attempting to explore the following relief:- “(a) allow the Review Petition; (b) Restore the original writ petition and to re- into hear the original writ petition taking consideration the grounds mentioned in the review petition; (c) And pass any other/further Order(s) as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard Mrs. Pami Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1. 3. The main ground on the basis of which the Review Petition has been instituted, is that this Court, while passing the judgment under challenge has relied upon a fabricated set of documents furnished before it, which led to the error apparent on record. Mrs. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners emphatically contended that, in fact, a fabricated and Page 2 of 53 parallel file was created and the said fabricated documents were placed before this Court to persuade this Court to pass the impugned judgment. Had the Court looked into the original record; the result of the writ petition would have been different. By taking us to the „so called fabricated records‟ placed with this Review Petition at Annexure-16 series, Mrs. Rath, has pointed out the following error stated to be apparently crept on record, which is reproduced herein under: in the “The Order dated 04.04.2025 present writ petition indicates that the Court had taken note of the original and fabricated records under Sealed Cover. But it has referred to the fabricated records which do not contain the real facts. Because of which it missed out the Order dated 09.09.2021 found in the original order sheet of the suo motu writ petition disposing of the suo motu writ petition No.7943/2021 wherein it was clearly indicated by the three Judges that all the three orders were dated 24.02.2021 i.e. the Order of the Hon‟ble Presiding Judge, the dissenting order of the Hon‟ble 2nd Judge and the combined order referring the matter to the then Hon‟ble Chief Justice were unsigned even as on 09.09.2021. Had the same been taken note of which is a judicial finding, the Court could not have relied upon Order dated 07.04.2021 Page 3 of 53 passed in W.P.(C) No.11802 of 2020 or any other order to come to the findings on facts. In any view of the matter the finding of the Three-Judge Bench was binding on the Writ Court.” In view of the aforementioned highlighted error, Mrs. Rath, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the writ petition needs to be re-heard and re-appreciated with reference to the sequence of events in the light of the original record pertaining to the registration of the Suo Motu Proceeding. 4. Before adverting to the various documents sought to be relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate stating those to be the original record, it would be apt to look into the proceeding of this Court in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.28874 of 2023, which eventually led to passing of the final judgment on 02.05.2025. On 31.01.2025, this Court has passed the following order: “After hearing the matter for some time, we feel it necessary to peruse all the original records in connection with case.
Arguments
Let the learned counsel for the State keep ready with all the original records in connection with this case in a sealed cover and produce the same for our perusal as and when required.” Page 4 of 53 On 07.02.2025, when the matter was again heard, the following order was passed: “As per order dated 31.01.2025, learned counsel for the State produced the documents in sealed cover before us. The sealed cover was opened in open Court and we perused the same. During the course of such perusal, we find that the complete records of Suo Motu W.P.(C) No. 7943 of 2021 is not available and accordingly, we sent instruction to the learned Registrar General of the Court to come. We asked the learned R.G. to submit the entire case records of Suo Motu W.P.(C) No.7943 of 2021. He sought for time to provide the same in sealed cover through the learned counsel for the State. Learned Advocate General submitted that he wants to peruse the entire records pertaining to the cases and one of the officers in the rank of Registrar of this Court may be asked to produce the records before him for his perusal in order to address the Court on the next date. to produce In view of such submission, we direct the learned Registrar General the relevant records pertaining to the writ petitions in sealed covers either by himself or by a responsible officer of the Court in the rank of Registrar, who is duly acquainted with the case before the learned Advocate General on his prior intimation for perusal and then keep the same in sealed cover. On consensus of all the parties, list this matter on 21st February 2025. The matter will be taken up at 10.30 a.m. Page 5 of 53 The documents produced in sealed covers, which were opened today in Court for our perusal, be re-sealed and handed over to the learned counsel for the State, who in turn shall handover learned Registrar General. The learned counsel for the State shall keep all the original records in connection with this case ready in sealed covers and produce the same for our perusal as and when required.” the same back the to
Decision
In view of the above referred proceedings preceding the final judgment, the plea of the review petitioners that the impugned judgment has blindsided by the original record holds no water. Again the proceeding went on and on 21.03.2025 this Court passed the following order: “During course of argument, Mr. Routray, for the petitioner learned Senior Advocate placed a short note of submissions which is filed by him in Court today and taken on record. In paragraph no.7 of the note, he has stated and also urged before us that there is no such rule/law/procedure/standing order regarding permission of the Hon’ble Chief Justice for registration of suo motu case basing on an order passed by the Hon’ble Court. In this connection, we find that Mr. Suman Kumar Mishra, the then Registrar (Judicial) was examined as Department Witness No.1 on 16th Page 6 of 53 July 2022 and in paragraph no.36 of his deposition, he has stated as follows:- "36. It is a fact that no codified procedure or rule is there requiring prior intimation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice before approving the note of D.R. the Registrar, General....." (Judicial) by In the inquiry report, in paragraph no.11, the Inquiring Authority has also mentioned as follows: "11.....Usually a suo Moto Writ Proceeding is initiated by the order of the Chief Justice or a Bench consisting of the Chief Justice as one of the member. As stated by Department Witness No.1, who is the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court, no such precedence is there where a Suo Moto Writ Proceeding was initiated by a Bench Chief Justice……….” other than the Let the Special Officer (Administration), High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, who has filed the counter affidavit on behalf of the opp. party nos.2, 3 and 4 in this writ petition, file an affidavit indicating specifically as to whether there is any rule/law/procedure/standing order regarding permission of the Hon‟ble Chief Justice for registration of suo motu case basing on an order passed by the Hon‟ble Court. Hearing is closed. List this matter along with W.P.(C) No.28873 of 2023 on 25.03.2025 under the heading of “To Page 7 of 53 be mentioned” for the purpose of filing an affidavit as directed.” 5. Pursuant to the order dated 21.03.2025, the Special Officer (Administration), High Court of Orissa, Cuttack filed an affidavit. The aforementioned proceedings indicate that before this Court passed the final order, repeated directions were made to the Review Petitioners to file the original documents in a sealed cover. It was also directed that the entire documents put in a sealed cover should be shown to the learned Advocate General and appropriate instruction should be furnished to him. 6. Subsequent thereto, the records were placed before us in a sealed cover. We have perused those documents and persuaded ourselves to pass the impugned judgment. That apart, in the writ petition, a detailed counter affidavit was filed by the Special Officer (Administration), High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. In the entire counter affidavit, there is not a single whisper regarding existence of such parallel record. Even though the same Officer pursuance to our order dated 21.03.2025 has filed the affidavit, in the said affidavit as well, there is not a single whisper regarding existence of such „parallel records‟ on which much importance was placed. Page 8 of 53 We have also perused the article of charges and the enquiry report as well as all other related documents pertaining to the departmental enquiry. In the entire documents and pleadings, nowhere it has come on record regarding existence of such parallel record. It is for the first time in the Review Petition that this point has been urged, on the basis of which, the Review of the final judgment dated 02.05.2025 has been sought for. 7. Mrs. Pami Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has urged that the impugned judgment suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record as it failed to appreciate the factual sequence in proper prospective. She submitted that on 24.02.2021, the Division Bench assembled, and the learned Presiding Judge directed initiation of a Suo Motu proceeding. The learned 2nd Judge immediately expressed his reservations in the open Court and refused to sign the order. This is borne out by the note-sheet of the then Hon‟ble Chief Justice as well as the subsequent letter dated 10.05.2021 written by the learned 2nd Judge to the Hon‟ble Chief Justice. Learned Senior Advocate argued that on 26.02.2021, despite the absence of a signed or authenticated order, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) placed a note-sheet accompanied by Page 9 of 53 an unauthenticated paper purporting to be the order of the Division Bench. Acting upon such a document, Suo Motu W.P.(C) No.7943 of 2021 was registered, though the roster for Public Interest Litigations was vested solely with the then Hon‟ble Chief Justice. On 01.03.2021, an unsigned order which also omitted the dissent of the learned 2nd Judge was served upon Mr. Manoranjan Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appointed as one of the Amicus Curiae. On 02.03.2021, the then Hon‟ble Chief Justice, upon being informed, took custody of the original file and directed that no further steps be taken in the Suo Motu matter. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that on 07.04.2021, while hearing W.P.(C) No. 11802 of 2020, the Division Bench of this Court adverted to the Suo Motu Writ Petition and relied upon a fabricated order-sheet. The learned 2nd Judge being unaware that the original record was with the Hon‟ble Chief Justice, was misled into signing his dissenting order. On 10.05.2021, the learned 2nd Judge wrote a letter to the Hon‟ble Chief Justice narrating the events of 24.02.2021, 26.02.2021 and 07.04.2021, reiterating that he had reserved his view on the Suo Motu Proceedings in open Court and refused to sign on 24.02.2021. On 20.05.2021, the Hon‟ble Chief Justice Page 10 of 53 issued a further note-sheet confirming the existence of fabricated records and clarifying that W.P.(C) No.11802 of 2020 was wholly unrelated. Finally, on 09.09.2021, a Three-Judge Bench disposed of Suo Motu W.P.(C) No. 7943 of 2021, holding that in view of unsigned and differing orders dated ought not to have been registered. Basing upon such factual foundation, learned Senior Advocate contended that the judgment under review erred in recording that there was no dissent by the learned 2nd Judge. The available record, the note-sheets of the Hon‟ble Chief Justice and the learned 2nd Judge‟s letter dated 10.05.2021, conclusively show that dissent was expressed. The order dated 24.02.2021 was not a judicial pronouncement but an administrative direction. It is settled that the Hon‟ble Chief Justice is the master of the roster, and registration of a Suo Motu Petition in the nature of a PIL could only have been placed before the Bench presided over by the Hon‟ble Chief Justice. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on State of Rajasthan -Vrs.- Prakash Chand1, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: 1 (1998) 1 SCC 1 Page 11 of 53 “59. From the preceding discussion, the following broad CONCLUSIONS emerge. This, of course, is not to be treated as a summary of our judgment and the conclusions should be read with the text of the judgment: (1) That the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is only the first amongst the equals. (2) That the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He alone has to constitute benches of the court and allocate cases to the benches so constituted. the prerogative (3) That the puisne Judges can only do that work as is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions. (4) That till any determination made by the Chief Justice lasts, no Judge who is to sit singly can sit in a Division Bench and no Division Bench can be split up by the Judges constituting the bench themselves and one or both the Judges constituting such bench sit singly and take up any other kind of judicial business not otherwise assigned to them by or under the directions of the Chief Justice. (5) That the Chief Justice can take cognizance of an application laid before him under Rule 55 (supra) and refer a case to the larger bench for its disposal and he can exercise this jurisdiction even in relation to a part-heard case. (6) That the puisne Judges cannot "pick and choose" any case pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or themselves for Page 12 of 53 disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief Justice. (7) That no Judge or Judges can give directions to the Registry for listing any case before him or them which runs counter to the directions given by the Chief Justice…..” Learned Senior Advocate contended that in the impugned judgment, reliance was placed on Surendra Singh -Vrs.- State of UP2 and Vinod Kumar Singh -Vrs.- Banaras Hindu University3 was wholly misplaced. Those decisions arose in circumstances where lis existed and rights of parties were finally determined. The present case involved neither parties nor adjudication of rights but merely an administrative instruction. In this regard, reliance was placed on Shankarlal Aggarwala -Vrs.- Shankarlal Poddar4, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court explained the distinction: “………It is perhaps not possible to formulate a definition which would satisfactorily distinguish, in this context, between an administrative and a judicial order. That the power is entrusted to or wielded by a person who functions as a Court is not decisive of the question whether the Act or decision is administrative or judicial. But we conceive that an administrative order should be one which is directed to the regulation or supervision of matters as distinguished from an
Decision
As a valued colleague and the senior most judge of the High Court, I had no occasion to disbelieve her and accordingly I signed only on 7.04.2021 on the dissenting portion of the draft order i.e. on 24.2.2021. When I came to understand that the Presiding Judge has coaxingly got the signature from me on an order sheet which was not part of the original record, though I signed on the dissenting portion of the said order on 7th April, 2021, I was aghast at witnessing such a novel format of court manoeuvrings.” 13. It is also apparent on record that the parallel and fabricated file appears to have been created in the 1st week of March, 2020. By that time, the delinquent writ petitioner was Page 42 of 53 already released on 27.02.2021 from the post of Registrar General. Therefore, the delinquent officer has no role to play regarding the creation of the parallel record, if any. It is also highlighted that a departmental proceeding has been initiated against few officers regarding creation of such fabricated document, which is not relevant for the purpose of the present case. The ground so taken and analysed as above perhaps not a sufficient ground for giving indulgence to the petitioners for seeking review of the judgment. It is also emphasized that the suo motu proceeding which was inappropriately registered on the basis of approval by the writ petitioner was placed before the three Judge Bench consisting of the then Hon‟ble Chief Justice, the Disciplinary Authority, the Hon‟ble Second Judge, the Enquiry Officer, the Hon‟ble Third Judge was the dissenting Judge to the orders which gives rise to the present lis. Three Judge Bench disposed of the Suo Motu Writ Petition being SUO MOTU W.P.(C) No.7943 of 2021 clearly indicating that there was two differing orders dated 24.02.2021 and all of them have remained unsigned on 26.02.2021. Therefore, the Suo Motu Writ Petition should not have been registered. 14. It is contended by Mrs. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the order passed by Page 43 of 53 the Three Judge Bench of this Court is binding on the present Division Bench. Since the Three Judge Bench has concluded that the Suo Motu Proceeding was wrongly initiated, the view taken by the Division Bench may not sustain the scrutiny of law. At this stage, Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1 has pointed out that even if the argument of the Review petitioners are accepted that there was a dissenting views amongst the two judges, under the High Court Rules, it should have been placed before the third judge. However, surprisingly, a larger bench of Three Judges was constituted. Mr. Routray, has strongly questioned the very constitution and composition of the Bench. He submitted that the Bench was consisting of the then Hon‟ble Chief Justice, the Disciplinary Authority, the Hon‟ble Second Judge, the Enquiry Officer, and the Hon‟ble Third Judge, the Dissenting Judge to the orders which gives rise to the present lis. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate further submitted that not only the composition is inappropriate but also ex-facie contrary to the High Court Rules. 15. We are not inclined to be drawn into this controversy regarding the composition of Bench, but suffice it to say that the Page 44 of 53 order of the Lager Bench has no bearing on the facts of the present case because in the writ petition, this Division Bench was only deciding the issue arising out of the enquiry and the disciplinary action taken against the delinquent officer. It would be relevant to reproduce the statement of imputation of charges, the delinquent officer was facing:- “a. The Writ Petitioner while working as Registrar General of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court instructed for registration of a suo motu writ petition without informing the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Hon’ble High Court and that also by giving his approval on a note sheet of the then Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on the basis of an unsigned order; b. The said approval/instruction was granted on the basis of an unsigned order of Hon’ble Senior Judge (name withheld), Puisne Judge (name withheld); c. The said approval for registration of suo motu writ petition has been done without any authority as the same does not come within the duty and authority of the office of Registrar General of Hon’ble Orissa High Court, and that also without the approval of the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of Hon’ble Orissa High Court; d. The further charges were that the suo motu proceeding had been based on an unsigned order and acted upon without the approval of the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of Hon’ble Orissa High Court; Page 45 of 53 e. Further, copies of the said unsigned order have also been sent to the Ld. Advocate General’s office and to the office of one of the Amicus Curiae, Ld. Senior Advocate Mr. Manoranjan Mohanty as part of notice; f. On the basis of the above, charges of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, administrative indiscipline and failure to maintain absolute honesty and integrity have been levelled.” Reading of the charges boils down to two issues namely, (1) the delinquent officer has acted upon an unsigned order of the Division Bench and (2) no approval was taken from the Hon‟ble Chief Justice before according approval for the registration of the Suo Motu Proceeding. 16. In so far as second issue regarding taking of approval before registration of Suo Motu Proceeding is concerned, this Court vide order dated 21.03.2025 has directed the Review Petitioners to file an affidavit and pursuant to the direction, the Special Officer (Administration), High Court of Orissa, Cuttack filed an affidavit dated 04.04.2025, inter alia, stating as under: “2. As per direction of the Hon’ble Court, I verified the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 regarding the existence of any rule /law/ procedure/standing order requiring permission of the Hon’ble Chief Justice for registration of a suo motu case basing on an order passed by the Page 46 of 53 instruction Hon’ble Court but could not trace the same. Thereafter, a request has been made to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court for furnishing such rule/law/procedure/standing order. As per his the Superintendents, Rules Section, List Section and Computerized Filing Section of the Court to furnish were requested the rule/law/procedure/standing order, if any, requiring permission of the Hon’ble Chief Justice for registration of suo motu case basing on an order passed by the Hon’ble Court. 3. The Superintendent, Rules Section of the Court enclosing copy of Judgment dated 05.04.2022 of Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Suo-Motu W.P. (MD) No.5273 of 2022 wherein it has been laid down that though Hon’ble Judge may form opinion to register suo motu writ petition on a complaint received from a citizen, he has no authority to direct the Registry to register suo motu case, but to direct the Registry to place the same before Hon’ble the Chief Justice. However, he has submitted that no rule/standing order of this Court is available with regard to taking permission of the Hon’ble Chief Justice for registration of suo motu case basing on an order passed by the Hon’ble Court. (Annexure-A). 4. The Superintendent, List Section of the Court has submitted that as per usual practice any order passed by the Hon’ble Court in this regard are sent to concerned branch and the branch places the matter before the Registrar (Judicial) for regarding registration of a suo motu case. List Section has no role regarding registration of suo motu case and also no such instruction is usual in the List course of action further Page 47 of 53 Section for registration of suo motu case. (Annexure-B) 5. The Superintendent, Computerized Filing Section of the Court has submitted that as per previous practice, this Section receives the Suo from the Registrar Motu Writ proceedings (Judicial) for the purpose of registration, as such with approval of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The procedure is being followed by the concerned rule/law/ section. procedure/standing been encountered by this Section. (Annexure-C). order has not Hence, such no that 6. In the light of the above position, it is forthcoming rule/law/ procedure/standing order regarding obtaining permission of Hon’ble the Chief Justice for registration of suo motu case basing on an order passed by the Hon’ble Court is available. such 7. That, the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge, belief and based upon available official records.” In the absence of any Rules/regulation and/or convention or judicial precedent to the effect that before registration of Suo-motu proceeding, permission preceding the registration from the Hon‟ble Chief justice is a condition precedent, no fault of the writ petitioner could be established per se. 17. In so far as the approval granted by the delinquent officer for registration of Suo Motu Proceeding on an unsigned Page 48 of 53 order is concerned, the argument advanced by Mrs. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners may assume some importance. This aspect of the matter has been appropriately dealt by us in the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2025, that part of the judgment reads thus:- “On 26.02.2021 the Deputy Register (Judicial) put up a note before the petitioner for necessary orders by verbatim reproducing the order dated 24.02.2021. The petitioner approved the note routinely which according to the petitioner was done in good faith and consequently the Suo Motu proceeding was registered. It is borne out of the record that the copy of the said order dated 24.02.2021 was also dispatched to the appointed Amicus Curiae, which was received by one of the learned Amicus Curiae on the same day. It is also apparent on record that the original proceeding signed by one of the Hon‟ble Judges was not placed before the petitioner on 26.02.2021. At least nothing contrary is coming to the fore on record to suggest otherwise. The note sheet dated 26.02.2021 which was put up before the petitioner for approval on 26.02.2021 was approved on the same day.” The aforementioned finding cannot be faulted by referring it to be an error relying upon the letter dated 10.05.2021 of the learned Puisne Judge, because even the learned Judge in the letter has not spoken about expressing dissent on 24.02.2021, rather he has mentioned that the judicial Page 49 of 53 proceeding dated 24.02.2021 was recorded by him only on 02.03.2021 and at one place he even says that he dissented on 07.03.2021. But in either case, admittedly on 26.02.2021, when the writ petitioner approved for registration of the Suo Motu proceeding, there was no dissent by the Second Judge on record. 18. At this juncture, it is pertinent to examine the contours of review jurisdiction. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in its recent pronouncement in Malleeswari -Vrs.- K. Suguna and Another19, after drawing guidance from earlier decisions in Parsion Devi -Vrs.- Sumitri Devi20, Lily Thomas -Vrs.-Union of India21, Inderchand Jain -Vrs.- Motilal22, Shivdev Singh -Vrs.- State of Punjab (supra), Hari Vishnu Kamath -Vrs.- Syed Ahmad Ishaque23, T.C. Basappa -Vrs.- T. Nagappa24, Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde -Vrs.- Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale25 and Chhajju Ram -Vrs.- Neki26, has restated the scope and ambit of review under