The Orissa High Court reaffirmed that administrative/quasi-judicial orders passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the affected party are unsustainable in law. The decision follows settled precedent, emphasizing that non-compliance with the principles of natural justice mandates setting aside such orders. Binding on all subordinate authorities within the State of Odisha, the judgment is a clear reinforcement of the audi alteram partem rule in mutation and similar proceedings.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/33204/2024 of SUKADEV BISWAL Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010930332024 |
| Date of Registration | 30-12-2024 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of the Orissa High Court |
| Type of Law | Administrative law / Natural Justice Principles |
| Questions of Law | Whether an order passed without affording hearing to the affected party violates principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the impugned order was passed without granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, despite the petitioner being a respondent in the appeal. Such lack of adherence to natural justice makes the order unsustainable in law. The matter was remitted to the authority for de novo consideration after hearing all parties. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the final order dated 19.11.2024 in Mutation Appeal No.19 of 2017 by the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur, on the ground that the order was passed without being afforded an opportunity of hearing. The Court found from the record that no such opportunity was given to the petitioner. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the territorial jurisdiction of Orissa High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts on similar questions of administrative fairness and natural justice |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that mutation and other administrative orders passed without hearing affected parties are unsustainable.
- Emphasizes that compliance with principles of natural justice is mandatory, irrespective of the nature of proceedings.
- Provides clear precedent to quash administrative orders in similar factual situations where hearing was denied.
- Sets mandatory remand for de novo consideration after hearing all parties expeditiously, enforcing prompt compliance.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the impugned order and the record, noting that no opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner, who was a respondent in the mutation appeal.
- Reiterated the settled principle that denial of a hearing constitutes violation of the principles of natural justice.
- Held the order passed by the Sub-Collector unsustainable in law for failure to observe due process.
- Directed remand of the matter to the Sub-Collector to decide the mutation appeal afresh after granting all parties an opportunity of being heard in full compliance with natural justice, within a specified timeframe.
- The decision did not refer to or rely on any other specific judgments or legal authorities beyond the general principle of natural justice.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The order dated 19.11.2024 was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
- Such denial violated the principles of natural justice.
Opposite Parties / Respondent Authorities:
- Heard through Additional Standing Counsel and counsels for private opposite parties. (No specific contrary argument on natural justice noted in the judgment.)
Factual Background
- The writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.11.2024 in Mutation Appeal No.19 of 2017 decided by the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur.
- The central grievance was the non-grant of an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the course of mutation appeal proceedings.
- The High Court, on review of the impugned order and case records, found that the principles of natural justice had not been complied with.
Statutory Analysis
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India were invoked for judicial review of the administrative order.
- The principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), were considered essential for validity of quasi-judicial orders.
- No specific statutory provision, rule, or section was construed or interpreted beyond the above.
Procedural Innovations
The Court directed all parties to appear before the Sub-Collector on a fixed date, with instructions to submit the certified copy of the order and receive further directions, ensuring prompt remand and expeditious disposal.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.