ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18775 of 2026 (PIL) CNR No. Bharat Behera & Ors. v. CK Ranjan reported in 2004 AIR SC 561 to corroborate the stand & Ors.

Mr. Debashis Tripathy, AGA CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 13.08.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for both the Parties.

2. The Petitioners attempted to give a colour of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by creating an illusory cause of action but predominantly to settle his personal scores.

3. It is averred in the instant Writ Petition that the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar are arbitrarily and illegally rejecting the Mutation Cases, concerning the land situated within the city of Bhubaneswar and have shown a scanty adherence to the statutory provisions. As an example, it is highlighted that the Application for mutation is being rejected as the property is found to be jointly owned by several co-sharers which according to the Petitioners cannot be a ground for rejection of the Mutation Petition.

4. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) neither flows from any statutory provision nor is any specific provision provided in the Constitution of India, but is recognized as a judge-made remedy whereby a public-spirited person may inform the Court of any action of the State or its instrumentalities being violative, not only of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution, but also of the obligations imposed under the Directive Principles. Any action of the Authorities in contravention to the Constitutional Rights guaranteed to the citizens of India and in common to all, may be protected and a mandamus may be issued by the Court directing the Authorities to act within the precinct of the Constitutional obligations and the statutory obligations. The person espousing the cause of the large section of the societies, must not have a personal interest but such issue should be raised for common good and ubiquitously be extended to all section of the society.

5. The fact disclosed by the State in relation to the status and the role of the Petitioner is that he approached the Tahasildar and/or the Additional Tahasildar with an Application for mutation of his name in the Record of Rights (RoR), which was subsequently rejected. There is a remedy provided against an order passed by the Tahasildar under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 and the Rule framed thereunder, but, the Petitioners have attempted to take a circuitous route as seeking to achieve a result for which the remedy is all provided in the Statute.

6. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Another Vs. CK Ranjan and Others reported in 2004 AIR SC 561 to corroborate the stand that the Petitioners may move for a private interest and for redressal of the grievance and there is no fetter put on the Court in furtherance of the public interest to enquire into the state of affairs in the interest of justice. It is further contended by the learned Counsel, taking aid of the observations made in the said report that there is no fetter put on the Court on the Writ Court to issue a writ of mandamus when the State fails to perform its duties.

7. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law laid down in the above report but the Court must venture to apply the ratio of the judgment to be culled out from the context in which it is used. It is not permissible to extract one sentence from hither and thither of the judgment and treated as the exposition of law, but a judgment should be read as a whole in order to find out the ratio laid down therein and not in a piecemeal manner. The said judgment relied upon the Petitioners was registered as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the basis of a letter sent the High Court alleging serious maladministration, the corruption and the management of Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur which is administered under the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 and the Rules framed thereunder.

8. In pursuit of passing several directions upon the State to act within the precinct of the constitutional provisions as well as the special Statute having enacted, the Hon’ble Apex Court took into account the earlier judgments and passed a direction for not only the implementation of the said special Statute but also a step which would conform to the constitutional ethos. It has been further observed in the said judgement that the role attributed to the conduct of the Managing Committee of the said temple is not free from blemish as the Minutes of the Meeting indicate differently.

9. We have no inkling of doubts that in deserving cases, the Court may exercise its extraordinary powers conferred under the Constitution, which involves a public element, but the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cannot be permitted to be used as a tool to settle its personal score. The conduct of the Petitioners cannot be said to be free from any blemish; rather, his application for mutation was rejected and instead of taking a recourse as permitted under the said Act, the instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is taken out, and any mandamus issued by the Court in the instant proceeding would indirectly impinge upon the decision of the Tahasildar or the Additional Tahasildar, taken in exercise of the powers conferred under the said Act. Whether the decision is not in conformity with the statutory provision or does not appear to be rational and/or reasonable can be gone into in different fora but not in the garb of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

10. There is no scintilla of doubt in our mind that taking a shelter under the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Petitioners intended to offset the orders passed on their application for mutation, for which the remedy is provided in the Statute itself. We, thus, do not find any elements or the ingredients pertaining to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and therefore dismissed the same with cost of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). Chief Justice (Harish Tandon) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) AK Pradhan/Priyanka Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYANKA BARIK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Aug-2026 10:47:08