The Orissa High Court reaffirms that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 remains available despite alternate remedies where there is breach of natural justice principles. This judgment, following Supreme Court precedents, upholds settled law and serves as binding authority for similar procedural violations in quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings.
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 |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent |
| Type of Law | Procedural law (constitutional, administrative/quasi-judicial) |
| Questions of Law | When does a writ petition lie under Articles 226/227 despite existence of alternate remedy? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The writ jurisdiction cannot be excluded merely because an alternate remedy exists where the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court applied the Supreme Court’s rulings in Whirlpool Corporation and Commercial Steel Ltd, which allow writ petitions in four exceptional cases including breach of natural justice. As the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing, interference is justified. The order under challenge was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing in compliance with natural justice. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Natural justice as indispensable to any quasi-judicial procedure; Supreme Court exceptions to alternate remedy bar. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Commissioner Consolidation passed a revision order without giving the petitioner (O.P. No.1 before the Commissioner) an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner challenged this in writ jurisdiction citing violation of natural justice. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals within the jurisdiction of the Orissa High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially for similar fact situations across India |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Restates and applies the Supreme Court’s exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy, particularly for violations of natural justice.
- Lawyers can seek writ jurisdiction even where alternative statutory remedies exist, if client’s right to be heard was not observed.
- The absence of explicit notice or hearing in administrative/quasi-judicial orders provides a gateway for writ challenge.
- Precise compliance with natural justice by authorities is critically necessary; any omission is grounds for interference.
- Serves as a ready precedent in procedural challenge to consolidation or administrative orders in Odisha.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court first establishes, on the record, that the petitioner (O.P. No.1 in Revision) was not given any opportunity of hearing prior to the impugned order being passed.
- Refers to Supreme Court judgments (Whirlpool Corporation, Commercial Steel Ltd.) which enumerate situations where a writ petition lies despite alternative remedies: (a) breach of natural justice, (b) fundamental rights affected, (c) challenge to vires, and (d) jurisdictional error/excess.
- Specifically highlights that where the principles of natural justice are breached — as found in the present case — the writ court is justified in entertaining the petition.
- Applies this principle to hold the impugned order invalid and sets it aside.
- Directs remand for de novo hearing after affording due opportunity, preserving parties’ ability to raise all contentions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing.
- The absence of notice amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
- Sought quashing of the order.
Respondent (State/Opposite Parties)
- Arguments not detailed in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner was the original opposite party in a consolidation revision. The Commissioner Consolidation, Bhubaneswar, decided Revision Case No.775 of 2009 without providing the petitioner any opportunity to be heard. The petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226/227 to challenge this breach of natural justice.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment is under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
- Analyzes the maintainability of a writ petition despite availability of alternative statutory remedies, based on established Supreme Court law.
- Discusses the exception where violation of natural justice renders the alternate remedy bar inapplicable.
- No interpretation or reading down of other statutory provisions involved.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions; judgment delivered solely by Justice A.C. Behera.
Procedural Innovations
- Directs all parties to appear before the Commissioner Consolidation on a specific date and file the certified copy of the judgment for further proceedings.
- Grants liberty to all parties to raise all grounds, including maintainability, in the remanded proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – High Court follows and applies the binding ratio of Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation and Commercial Steel Ltd, re-emphasizing established exceptions to the bar of alternate remedy, specifically for breach of natural justice.