High Court reaffirms prompt grievance redressal under Article 350; issues mandamus for six-week decision and personal penal costs for delay
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/22508/2025 of SIMANCHAL KANHAR Vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL AND MASS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,BBSR |
| CNR | ODHC010565482025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Type of Law | Constitutional provision – Article 350 |
| Questions of Law | Whether failure to decide a representation within a reasonable time violates Article 350 and warrants court intervention? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All concerned administrative authorities |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that Article 350 imposes a constitutional duty on authorities to decide citizen grievances on merits within a reasonable time.
- Confirms the High Court’s power under writ jurisdiction to issue mandamus directing time-bound disposal of representations.
- Introduces personal penal costs on defaulting officials to enforce administrative compliance.
- Keeps all contentions open, allowing authorities to seek further information but prohibiting delay under its guise.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner filed a previous W.P.(C) directing fresh representation after retention period under state transfer policy.
- His online representation remained undecided by the designated authority (OP No. 3).
- Invoking Article 350, the Court held that non-action on grievances breaches the constitutional mandate for timely redressal.
- Exercising its supervisory writ power, the Court disposed the petition and issued mandamus: decision within six weeks, open to requisition of documents.
- To ensure compliance, the Court warned of personal penal costs on jurisdictional officials for any delay or default.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Relied on a Coordinate Bench’s direction to file representation under the transfer guidelines after the retention period.
- Invoked Article 350 to mandate a merits-based, time-bound decision on his pending transfer representation.
Opposite Parties (State/A.G.A.)
- Offered to instruct jurisdictional officials to decide the representation within a time-bound framework, if all contentions were kept open.
Factual Background
- The petitioner, a School & Mass Education Department employee, seeks transfer on alleged health grounds.
- A Coordinate Bench of this Court (W.P.(C) No.5958/2025) directed him to file a fresh representation under state transfer guidelines post retention period.
- He filed an online application, forwarded by OP No. 2 on 30.06.2025, but OP No. 3 took no decision.
- He approached the High Court under Article 226, invoking Article 350’s guarantee of timely grievance redressal.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 350 of the Constitution mandates that “whenever a grievance is made by a citizen… the authority concerned… shall decide it on merits and as expeditiously as possible.”
- The Court interpreted this provision as imposing a reasonable-time obligation on administrative authorities and justifying writ intervention when performance is lacking.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court sanctioned the imposition of personal penal costs on jurisdictional officials for delay or default in administrative decision-making.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms existing constitutional mandates for timely grievance disposal under Article 350.