The Orissa High Court, through a brief oral order, disposed of a batch of writ petitions without prescribing new legal principles or addressing substantive legal issues. This judgment upholds existing judicial practice regarding summary disposals and does not alter or clarify prevailing law. It carries no binding or persuasive value for future cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/23452/2014 of KABIRAJ JENA Vs STATE |
| CNR | ODHC010067712014 |
| 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 | Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi |
| Precedent Value | No binding or persuasive precedent due to absence of ratio decidendi; summary disposal. |
| Questions of Law | Not addressed in the judgment. |
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) |
The judgment consists only of a brief order recording the disposal of writ petitions without delving into specific facts or legal issues. The Court did not articulate any legal principles, analyze questions of law, or provide a statement of reasons. The order merely vacates previous interim orders and disposes of the batch cases. Consequently, there is no formulation of ratio decidendi or legal reasoning that could serve as a precedent. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | No factual summary is contained in the judgment order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding as precedent on any court. |
| Persuasive For | Not persuasive for other courts; contains no legal reasoning or pronouncement of law. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment illustrates that not every disposed petition results in a reportable order or binding precedent.
- Practitioners should note that mere summary disposal of petitions, without recorded reasoning, cannot be cited as legal authority.
- No new principle, clarification, or procedural guideline has been established in this batch disposal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the presence of counsel for all parties and pronounced that all writ petitions in the batch stood disposed of.
- The order vacated any interim orders granted previously in these matters.
- No discussion, analysis, statutory interpretation, or reference to precedent was provided in the judgment.
- The judgment contains no reasoning or exposition of legal principles.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – No alteration or breaking of precedent; existing practice of summary disposal followed.