High Court affirms requirement to exhaust statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction, directing petitioners to file replies and restraining coercive action pending decision.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/22680/2025 of DHANURJAYA RANA Vs COLLECTOR, KEONJHAR |
| CNR | ODHC010571612025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner alleged to be an encroacher challenged the show-cause notice issued by the Additional Tahasildar in Encroachment Case No. 4-176/2025. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reaffirmed that a writ petition challenging a statutory show-cause notice is premature if the petitioner has not first filed a reply to the notice.
- Courts may direct petitioners to exhaust statutory remedies by filing replies and awaiting the authority’s decision before entertaining writ applications.
- The decision exemplifies that inherent writ jurisdiction will be exercised sparingly and only after applicable administrative procedures are complied with.
- The High Court granted interim protection against coercive action pending disposal of the statutory reply, balancing procedural compliance with protection of rights.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the petitioner approached the High Court instead of replying to the show-cause notice issued in Encroachment Case No. 4-176/2025.
- On the State’s submission that the petition was premature for non-exhaustion of statutory remedy, the Court agreed and deemed the writ unsuitable at that stage.
- The Court exercised its discretion under Article 226 to direct the petitioner to file a reply within ten working days and the Additional Tahasildar to pass a lawful order within fifteen working days thereafter.
- It further restrained any coercive action under the impugned notice until the statutory decision, ensuring procedural compliance while safeguarding the petitioner’s position.
- The disposal reinforced the principle that High Court intervention is contingent on exhaustion of remedies provided by special or statutory laws.
Arguments by the Parties
Opposite Party (State)
- The writ petition is premature as the petitioner has not availed the statutory procedure by filing a reply to the show-cause notice.
Factual Background
- The petitioner, alleged to be an encroacher, was served with a show-cause notice by the Additional Tahasildar, Sadar, Keonjhar, in Encroachment Case No. 4-176/2025.
- Instead of submitting a reply to the notice, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging its validity.
- The High Court heard the matter and observed that the statutory mechanism had not been utilised before seeking writ relief.
- Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to file a statutory reply and restrained coercive action until the competent authority decided on the reply.