Reaffirmation of Supervisory Power to Direct Administrative Authorities on Pending Representations
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/22095/2025 of SHIBANI DALNAIK Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010558902025 |
| Date of Registration | 07-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Reaffirms supervisory power of High Court under writ jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law / Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether a High Court can direct an authority to decide a pending representation within a specified timeframe. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, may issue mandamus to administrative authorities for disposal of pending representations within a stipulated period. Even without expressing on the substantive merits, such directions address undue procedural delays. This power flows from the supervisory jurisdiction inherent in Articles of the Constitution empowering High Courts to ensure administrative accountability. In absence of objection by the State, the Court fixed a three-month period for decision, illustrating that procedural relief can be granted independently of merits. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | No specific precedents or statutes were cited; the Court invoked its inherent writ jurisdiction to address delay. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged her transfer and relieve orders dated 30.04.2025 and 03.05.2025, and had filed a representation before the department which remained undecided. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All administrative authorities and subordinate courts in Odisha handling service representations. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts facing petitions for procedural relief in service matters. |
| Follows | Established practice of granting mandamus for delay in disposing representations. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that High Courts can grant mandamus for timely disposal of pending administrative representations, even without addressing substantive merits.
- Demonstrates that the State’s non-opposition to procedural relief aids in securing time-bound directions.
- Confirms that a three-month period to decide representations is within the court’s discretion.
- Lawyers may cite this to seek similar directions in transfer or service-related disputes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Petitioner challenged transfer and relieve orders and filed representation (Annexure-6) which remained pending.
- No decision on the representation prompted the writ petition seeking quashing of transfer orders and direction for counting service.
- State had no objection to a direction for deciding the representation.
- The Court, without delving into merits, exercised its writ jurisdiction to address procedural delay.
- It granted mandamus directing the authority (Opposite Party No.3) to decide the representation within three months.
- Writ petition disposed accordingly.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Filed representation against transfer and relieve orders which remained undecided.
- Sought quashing of orders and direction to count service.
- Requested time-bound decision on representation.
State / Opposite Parties
- No objection to a direction for disposal of the pending representation within a specified timeframe.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a government employee at CHC Shirsa, was served with a transfer order dated 30.04.2025 and a relieve order dated 03.05.2025. She submitted a representation (Annexure-6) to the department (Opposite Party No.3) challenging those orders and seeking counting of 35 years of service. As no decision was communicated, she moved this writ petition for quashing of the orders and for mandamus to decide her representation.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court invoked its inherent writ jurisdiction (Writ Petition under the High Court’s constitutional powers) to issue a mandamus.
- No specific statutory provisions or sections of law were analyzed or interpreted in the order.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural principles or guidelines were laid down beyond the reaffirmation of time-bound disposal of representations.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 📅 Time-Sensitive
Citations
No reported citations or paragraph references were provided in the order.