The Orissa High Court, applying binding Supreme Court precedent, reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 may be invoked even if alternative remedies exist, specifically where the principles of natural justice are violated. This judgment follows the established law and reinforces its consistent application, providing binding authority within the State and valuable reference elsewhere for procedural breaches.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/17243/2025 of SARAT NAYAK @ SARAT CHANDRA NAYAK Vs COMMISSIONER CONSOLIDATION, BBSR |
| CNR | ODHC010395742025 |
| Date of Registration | 24-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; persuasive for other courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent (Whirlpool Corp., Commercial Steel Ltd.) |
| Type of Law | Constitutional and Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ petition under Articles 226/227 is maintainable despite alternative remedy, if natural justice is violated |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that when an impugned order is passed without giving the party affected an opportunity of hearing, it breaches the principles of natural justice. The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court’s writ jurisdiction in such cases. The law on maintainability is settled by the Supreme Court in cases like Whirlpool Corporation and Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited, which recognize exceptions to the alternative remedy rule in instances of natural justice violations. Applying this principle, the court quashed the impugned order for want of hearing and remanded the matter for re-consideration after hearing all parties. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court’s exposition on exceptions to the alternative remedy rule—especially where natural justice is breached. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Commissioner Consolidation, Bhubaneswar, in Revision Case No. 775 of 2009, on the ground that no hearing was provided to him (O.P. No.1 in the revision). The impugned order did not reflect any opportunity of hearing to the affected party. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Orissa; relevant administrative authorities |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court; authorities handling writs concerning procedural fairness |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that violation of natural justice is a settled exception to the bar of alternative remedy in writ proceedings.
- The absence of a hearing for an affected party renders the order vulnerable to writ challenge even if alternative statutory remedies exist.
- The court strictly applied the Supreme Court’s recognized exceptions regarding maintainability of writ petitions under Articles 226/227.
- Lawyers can rely on this order to assail administrative/quasi-judicial orders passed without notice or hearing, and bypass objections regarding availability of alternative remedy.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the impugned order and found no indication that the affected party (petitioner) was granted a hearing in Revision Case No. 775 of 2009.
- Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd., the court set out the recognized exceptions for entertaining writ petitions despite an alternative remedy—including breach of natural justice.
- It was held that the principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard) is fundamental; its denial constitutes sufficient ground for writ intervention.
- Concluding that the Commissioner Consolidation failed to observe natural justice, the High Court quashed the order and remanded the matter to be reconsidered after providing parties an opportunity of hearing.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
- Such breach of natural justice justifies exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, notwithstanding alternative remedies.
Opposite Parties/State
No specific argument details from the judgment are available.
Factual Background
The petitioner challenged an order dated 25.08.2023 of the Commissioner Consolidation, Bhubaneswar, in Revision Case No. 775 of 2009. The order was passed without recording that any hearing was given to the petitioner (O.P. No.1 in the revision). This prompted the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 invoking breach of natural justice.
Statutory Analysis
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India were under consideration regarding the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.
- The court discussed established exceptions to the alternative remedy rule, referencing interpretations in Supreme Court judgments: orders passed in breach of principles of natural justice fall within the exceptions, permitting writ petitions to be entertained.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are reported in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were articulated in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law affirmed and applied.