The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 05. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.190 of 2021 State of Odisha & another …. Petitioners Mr.S.N. Biswal, ASC -versus- Pandit Biswambar Dash @ Biswambar Dash & another
Legal Reasoning
…. Opp. Parties Mr. Sangram Jena, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 04.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. S.N. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sangram Jena, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1. 2. The Opposite Party No.1 had filed the writ petition before this Court being W.P. (C) No.25679 of 2021, inter alia, making the following prayer: issue writ/writs “The petitioner therefore, prays that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this case, call for records, after hearing the parties, in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other direction/ directions to the Learned State Educational Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, Odisha to dispose of the Execution Case No.127/2014 arising out of GIA case No.491 of 2011 disposed of on 05.09.2013 which is pending before him as under Annexure-1 within a stipulated period of time as directed by this Hon’ble court.” Page 1 of 5 3. The writ petition was taken up for hearing by the coordinate Bench of this Court. On 26.08.2021, the following order was passed: “This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. J.K. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate. seeking direction 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar to dispose of the Execution Case No.127 of 2014, arising out of GIA Case No.491 of 2011 disposed of on 05.09.2013, pending before him under Annexure-1 within a stipulated period. to 4. considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing to opposite party no.3-State Education Tribunal, Bubaneswar to dispose of the Execution Case No.127 of 2014, arising out of GIA Case No.491 of 2011 disposed of on 05.09.2013, pending before him as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months, if it is otherwise ready for disposal. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.” 4. The State of Orissa has now filed the instant Review Petition on the ground that the aforementioned order dated 26.08.2021 has been passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court without affording an opportunity of hearing. 5. The petitioners further asserted that they were deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case in W.P. (C) No. 25679 of 2021, with an order being passed against them on the very first day of the hearing. They further urged that this Page 2 of 5 constitutes a breach of the principles of natural justice. They further contend that they should have been given a fair chance of being heard. 6. Perusal of the order dated 26.08.2021 reveals that the said order was passed in presence of the learned counsel for the State, namely, AGA. Therefore, the ground that the petitioners were not given fair opportunity does not hold any water. Moreover, vide the order dated 26.08.2021, this Court has only directed the execution court to proceed with the matter. Hence, there is no substantive order prejudicing the present petitioners has been passed. Therefore, on the ground of non-compliance of principle of natural justice, a review cannot be maintained by the petitioners. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has already settled the principle in Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v. Ramjee, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 256, and held thus: “13. The last violation regarded as a lethal objection is that the Board did not enquire of the respondent, independently of the one done by the Regional Inspector. Assuming it to be necessary, here the respondent has, in the form of an appeal against the report of the Regional Inspector, sent his explanation to the Chairman of the Board. He has thus been heard and compliance with Regulation 26, in the circumstances, is complete. Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking landmine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness Page 3 of 5 such fundamentals of is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and essential the processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt — that is the conscience of the matter.” Similar views were echoed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab SEB, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 216 and the court held thus: two rules of natural 32. The justice, namely, nemo judex in causa sua, and audi alteram partem now have a definite meaning and connotation in law and their contents and implications are well understood and firmly established; they are nonetheless non-statutory. The court has to determine whether the observance of the principles of natural justice was necessary for a just decision in the facts of the particular case. (Vide Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v. Ramjee [(1977) 2 SCC 256 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 226 : AIR 1977 SC 965] , SCC of India v. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672 : AIR 1985 SC 1416] ; and ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704 : AIR 1994 SC 1074] .) 13; Union para 262, p. In addition to this, violation of principle of natural justice is not a ground under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the Page 4 of 5 maintainability of the Review Petition. 7. Regard being had to the aforementioned, I am not inclined to entertain the Review Petition. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. Ashok …………………. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Mar-2025 19:06:42 Page 5 of 5