The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK I.A. NOS. 16218, 16219 & 18345 OF 2025 (Arising out of WP(C) No. 24143 of 2025) In the matter of Applications under Chapter VI, Rule 27(a) of Orissa High Court Rules, 1948. -------------- I.A. Nos. 16218 & 16219 of 2025 Bibhu Prasanna Mohapatra (in both) ..… Petitioner/ Applicant Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ____________________________________________________________ For Applicant: M/s Gautam Mukharjee & D.P. Nanda, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Samvit Mohanty, Advocate ____________________________________________________________ I.A.No. 18345 of 2025 Dr. Subash Mohapatra ….. Petitioner/Applicant -Versus- Dharmendra Pradhan & Ors. .…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner-Applicant: Dr. Subash Mohapatra- In person Intended Opp. Party ____________________________________________________________ CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ashok Parija (Sr. Advocate) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing: 16.10.2025 :: Date of Order : 30.10.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Page 1 of 11 PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J.
Decision
The subject Writ Petition was disposed off ex parte, vide order dated 09.09.2025, which reads as under: “Learned counsel for the Petitioner, party in person, having argued the matter for some time, now seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the Petition with liberty to pursue the remedies elsewhere in accordance with law. Leave having been accorded, Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought for.” 2. There are three Applications for consideration at the hands of this Court. Two of them, viz., I.A. No.16218 of 2025 & I.A. No. 16219 of 2025 are filed by a non-party to the Writ Petition, who happens to be a Member of the Bar. The former one seeks recall of the above order, whereby the Writ Petition was disposed off. The latter seeks stay of the said order, till consideration of former Application. The third Application in I.A. No.18345 of 2025 is filed by the Writ Petitioner himself with the following prayers: “And Your Lordships may kindly add Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija as a party to this Petition for the limited purpose of these proceedings and report this matter before the Full Court in accordance with Rule 11 of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 for appropriate action; And Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to direct that the parties and their advocates may appear in these proceedings, to the exclusion of all others not duly authorized or connected with the matter, so as to maintain orderly and fair conduct in the courtroom;” Page 2 of 11 3. This Court, vide order dated 16.09.2025, had kept that portion of the final order dated 09.09.2025 under suspended animation whereby liberty was granted to the Petitioner to explore remedies elsewhere. Matter was heard for some time on 19.09.2025 and the following order came to be passed: “This Petition was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 09.09.2025 ex-parte OPs at the admission stage. The short order is reproduced for ease of reference. “Learned counsel for the Petitioner, party in person, having argued the matter for some time, now seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the Petition with liberty in to pursue accordance with law. the remedies elsewhere Leave having been accorded, Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought for.” Now, I.A. No.16218 of 2025 has been moved essentially seeking 2. recall of the said order and I.A. No.16219 of 2025 has been moved for staying the operation of said order. The applicant, in both the applications, was not a party to the Writ Petition. This Court is not very sure whether he has locus standi to maintain the subject applications. Be that as it may, but the applications reveal that this Court ought not to have passed order of the kind, especially granting liberty to the Petitioner to agitate his grievance elsewhere, when the matter did not fall within its roster made by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, who is the Master of the Roster, vide Apex Court decision in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, (1998) 1 SCC 1. Party in-person, who also claims to be an advocate, rightly 3. submits that in terms of Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the matter should go to the hands of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. He says, in the course of hearing today, that this was brought to my notice on the first day itself, when the Petition was heard. In the above circumstances, the subject order is liable to be recalled and matter needs to be placed at the hands of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. 4. The above being said, learned Senior Advocates-Mr. Ashok Parija, Mr. D.P. Nanda & Mr. Gautam Mukherjee very vehemently submitted that the averments in the Writ Petition prima facie amount to gross criminal contempt of this Court and therefore, action should be initiated against the Petitioner party in-person. A perusal of the Petition prima facie shows that scurrilous allegations are made against a learned Coordinate Judge of this Court and on that ground transfer of ELPET No.30 of 2024 was sought for from his Court to another. Dr. Mohapatra, party in-person draws attention of the Court to Rule 7 of Chapter XVII of the Orissa High Court Rules, which vests Page 3 of 11 exclusive power to deal with criminal contempt cases of the kind. More is not necessary to specify. In the above circumstances, this Court has to suo motu recall the order dated 09.09.2025 in a wholesale way and as a consequence the Writ Petition in its present form & substance need to be revived and restored to the Board for consideration afresh. Registry has to post it before the Roster Bench. At in-person this stage, Dr. Mohapatra party tendered unconditional apology to the learned Coordinate Judge of this Court against whom highly egregious & scurrilous allegations were unjustifiably made and to Senior Advocates-Mr. Ashok Parija, Mr. D.P. Nanda & Mr. Gautam Mukherjee and all other members of the Bar for making the said allegations against the Judge. He repeatedly submits that he would file an affidavit tendering unconditional apology and also withdraw all allegations levelled against the learned Judge concerned by Monday (22.09.2025). With this proposal all members of the Bar thickly gathered in the Court, are agreeable. In view of the above, call this matter for further hearing on Monday imminent. Dr. Mohapatra shall be personally present before the Court on the said date of hearing.” 4. Learned Senior Advocates Mr. Gautam Mukharjee & Mr. D.P. Nanda appearing for the Applicant in I.A. No.16218 of 2025 & I.A. No. 16219 of 2025 took the Court through the Petition averments and contended that the allegations levelled against a learned Co-ordinate Judge of this Court are criminally contemptuous; Petitioner-party in person has made these allegations in the form of averments, absolutely without any justification whatsoever and therefore, action be taken for initiating action for criminal contempt, since the dignity, reputation & efficacy of the Court as an Institution have been marred, with mala fide intent. They further submitted that this Court not being the Roster Bench could not have passed kind of the order whereby Writ Petition is finally disposed off ex parte reserving liberty to the Petitioner to seek remedy elsewhere; Petitioner has Page 4 of 11 suppressed essential facts as to this Court not being the Roster Bench; the said final order is liable to be recalled and papers be placed at the hands of Hon‟ble the Chief Justice for initiating action for criminal contempt. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Ashok Parija opposed Petitioner‟s Application in I.A. No.18345 of 2025 for his impleadment to the Writ Petition contending that: The same lacks bona fide; when Court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, such an Application cannot be treated; he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the Writ Petition; even otherwise, the act of filing the Application itself amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 6. Petitioner-party in person refuted the contentions taken up by learned Senior Advocates Mr. Mukharjee, Mr. Nanda & Mr. Parija. He submitted that on the first day of Preliminary Hearing itself he had sought for referring the matter to the Roster Bench, this Bench not having allocation of the subject and therefore, the contention of suppression of essential fact is not true; he was ready & willing to tender apology in the form of affidavit in that regard; even otherwise, he has abundant evidentiary material to demonstrate truthfulness of the allegations; that he has no objection for recalling the final order and posting the matter before Page 5 of 11 the Roster Bench, in view of the law enacted in Section 80A(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 7. I have heard Petitioner-party in person and learned Senior Advocates appearing for the Applicant in the subject two Applications. I have also heard Mr. Parija, who is sought to be impleaded vide Application in I.A. No.18345 of 2025 filed by the Petitioner. I have perused the papers. Having done that exercise, I am inclined to grant indulgence in I.A. No.16218 of 2025, as under, and decline interference in Petitioner‟s I.A. No.18345 of 2025, for the following reasons: 7.1. The prayer in the Writ Petition reads as under: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased the reasonable facts narrated as above as just and proper under the circumstances; into consideration take to And Your Lordship may kindly entertain this Application allowing the transfer of ELPET No.30 of 2024 from Court No.16 to any other Court for the ends of justice invoking Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Section 80- A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 for ends of the justice.” The text of final order dated 09.09.2025, whereby the Writ Petition was “dismissed as withdrawn” is already reproduced in the first paragraph of this order. There is no reason to doubt the version of Petitioner-party in person that he had notified to the Court that the matter falls into the Roster Page 6 of 11 of other Court. This, to an extent, is also supported by what has been observed by the Court in its order dated 19.09.2025. If that be so, this Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition „as withdrawn‟, could not have reserved liberty to the Petitioner to work out his remedy elsewhere, the appropriate course being placing the matter at the hands of Roster Bench. 7.2. The above view is also supported by the act of Petitioner in moving I.A. No. No.18345 of 2025, wherein he has sought for impleading Mr. Parija as an additional OP. If he intends to implead a person as party to the Petition, he cannot oppose the Application for recall of the order, whereby the Petition was finally disposed off, inasmuch as ordinarily in cases that are no longer pending, the prayer for impleadment is not granted. Added, the question of passing any order on impleading Application would touch merits of the main matter. The jurisdictional Court has to ascertain whether person sought to be impleaded is a „necessary party‟ or „proper party‟ in the light of decision of the Apex Court in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886. Therefore, it does not arise here since this Court does not have Roster allotment. It is for the Roster Bench to take a call on that, when the said Application, along with the main matter, is placed before it. The following texts of Section 80A(2) read with Section Page 7 of 11 86(2) of the 1951 Act lends support to this general view, of course subject to all just exceptions: “80A. High Court to try election petitions.—xx xx xx (2) Such jurisdiction shall be exercised ordinarily by a single Judge of the High Court and the Chief Justice, shall, from time to time, assign one or more Judges for that purpose: Provided that where the High Court consists only of one Judge, he shall try all election petitions presented to that Court.” “86. Trial of election petitions.— xx xx xx (2) As soon as may be after an election petition has been presented to the High Court, it shall be referred to the Judge or one of the Judges who has or have been assigned by the Chief Justice for the trial of election petitions under sub-section (2) of section 80A.” 7.3. I have carefully perused every paragraph in the Writ Petition, again. There is a lot of force in the submission of learned Senior Advocates appearing for the Applicant in I.A. No.16218 of 2025 that in the Petition averments wild allegations are levelled against a sitting Judge of this Court who is hearing/trying ELPET No.30 of 2024 filed by the Petitioner, as a party in person. Those averments are advertently not reproduced here, since this Court being a Court of Record, all its orders would remain on record for eternity. Added, these averments are available in the Petition papers. Mr. Mukharjee is right in telling that although truth per se is a defence in action for defamation, ordinarily it is not so in a proceeding for Contempt of Court, unless the same is animated with abundant elements of bona fide. Some accountability for the culpable action has to be fixed, Page 8 of 11 whoever it be. This Court cannot hold a mini trial to ascertain whether allegations are true and if true, whether they suffer from the vice of lack of bona fide. All that, is a matter for prima facie consideration at the hands of Hon‟ble the Chief Justice at the triggering point, and for the Bench to be constituted by him, if & when the decision is taken by him for initiating the action. More is not necessary to specify. 7.4. All the above being said, there is yet a finer aspect to the matter: Wild allegations of the kind made in the Petition have enormous abuse potential at the hands of unscrupulous persons. If such abuse takes place, that would affect not only the reputation of judge concerned but the institutional dignity & honour of the Court as well. In this ever expanding digital world, more often than not, judicial officers are becoming more & more vulnerable. That puts independence of the judiciary at stake. One cannot say whatever one wants in Court and go away with impunity. Generally speaking, the job of judges, nowadays, is challenging, to say the least, unscrupulous individuals sprinkling amidst the scrupulous lot. The Science & Technology have come handy for them to assail the reputation of judges and to damage the image of Judicial Institution. Therefore, something preventive needs to be done. In my considered opinion, the certified copies of case papers containing scurrilous scripts should not be Page 9 of 11 made available to anyone, save with the leave of Hon‟ble the Chief Justice. Additionally, these scripts, be in hard form or e-form, need to be masked to render them inaccessible to anyone. Of course, this should be subject to all just exceptions. A normative procedure also can be evolved for regulating this aspect of the matter. In the above circumstances, I make the following: ORDER (i) The Application in I.A. No.16218 of 2025 having been favoured, the final order dated 09.09.2025 is hereby recalled and as a consequence the Writ Petition is restored to the Board; Registry to post the matter before the Roster Bench after taking orders of Hon‟ble the Chief Justice, if need be. (ii) The Registry is directed to place immediately a set of case papers in the subject Writ Petition at the hands of Hon‟ble the Chief Justice for examining as to whether the matter merits initiation of action against the Petitioner for the offence of Contempt of Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and/or the provisions of Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, or otherwise. (iii) The Registry is directed not to grant certified copies of record of Writ Petition or any part thereof to any person nor shall anyone be permitted to look into the said record, hard or digital, save with the leave of Hon‟ble the Chief Justice, and further that the entire record/file be masked. Page 10 of 11 (iv) As a consequence of the above point no.(i), it is for the Roster Bench to decide the fate of Petitioner‟s Application in I.A. No. No.18345 of 2025, when the main matter is placed at its hands. (v) The Application in I.A. No. 16219 of 2025 seeking stay of a part of operative portion of the order dated 09.09.2025, which is since recalled, is disposed off as having become infructuous. ……..………………………. Dixit Krishna Shripad, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 30th day of October, 2025/GDS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GAYADHAR SAMAL Designation: JOINT REGISTRAR-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 11:00:28 Page 11 of 11