The Orissa High Court reaffirmed that it may dispose of multiple writ petitions by a common formal order, especially where parties are present and due process is followed. This ruling upholds previous practice in writ adjudication, confirming binding procedure within the jurisdiction and clarifying the effect of earlier interim orders.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WP(C)/23456/2014 of SUMANTA KU.BEHERA Vs STATE CNR ODHC010082122014 |
| Date of Registration | 29-11-2014 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Orissa High Court jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law (Writ Jurisdiction) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court exercised its discretion to dispose of a batch of writ petitions through a common order after hearing all counsels, vacating any interim orders previously granted. This procedure is in accordance with established principles of judicial process when writ petitions involve similar questions or parties. The order was passed in open court in the presence of counsel for both sides, meeting requirements of fairness and procedural integrity. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Multiple writ petitions involving common or connected parties and issues were listed and heard together. Counsel for all sides were present. Judgement was read out in open court, and all interim orders passed in the matters were vacated. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and writ proceedings within Orissa High Court jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts assessing disposal of batch writ petitions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment confirms that the Orissa High Court may dispose of related writ petitions by a single dispositive order, especially where counsels are present and hearings completed.
- Any interim relief granted in such matters stands vacated by the final common order, unless otherwise specified.
- Formal pronouncement in open court satisfies the requirement of due process for grouped writ petitions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court, upon list of several writ petitions involving similar parties/issues, heard arguments from all learned counsels in a hybrid (physical/virtual) arrangement.
- Having prepared and pronounced the judgment in open court and in the presence of parties, the court exercised its discretion to issue a common order in the batch.
- The order specifically vacated all interim orders passed previously in any of the batch writ petitions, thus ensuring procedural certainty.
- This approach aligns with procedural rules and inherent powers of the High Court to manage its docket efficiently when faced with batches of related petitions.
Factual Background
Multiple writ petitions (including WP(C) Nos. 20746, 21504, 23452, 23453, 23454, 23455, and 23456 of 2014) were filed in the Orissa High Court. These matters, having either common parties or similar issues, were listed to be heard together. All counsels were present during the hearing. The judge delivered and pronounced a common order in open court, disposing of the petitions and vacating all previous interim orders.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment involves the High Court’s powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to deal with writ petitions. Procedural discretion for grouping, hearing, and disposing of multiple petitions is exercised in accordance with judicial principles and practices governing writ jurisdiction.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded or delivered in this single-judge bench judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were set out; the court followed established procedural norms for the disposal of batch petitions and vacation of interim orders.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing law and practice on batch writ petition disposal and procedural discretion affirmed.