Recently, the Orissa High Court held that any order passed by a judge on a matter not assigned under the roster is inherently without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. Addressing a challenge arising from interference with execution proceedings, the Court emphasised the centrality of the Chief Justice’s role as the “master of the roster” and cautioned that any judicial overreach beyond assigned subject matters strikes at the very foundation of institutional discipline and validity of judicial orders.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from an arbitral award passed in favour of the Appellant, which attained finality after no successful challenge under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Appellant initiated execution proceedings before the Commercial Court under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Despite repeated opportunities, the judgment-debtor failed to comply and sought adjournments, prompting the executing court to order detention in civil prison. Challenging this coercive action, the Respondent approached the High Court by filing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The matter was listed before a Single Judge assigned to writ jurisdiction, who set aside the execution order and issued further directions. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ appeal, raising questions on maintainability and jurisdiction.
Contentions:
The Appellant contended that the Single Judge had exceeded jurisdiction by entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against a judicial order passed by a civil court. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015), it was argued that such orders are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Appellant further asserted that the matter, if at all maintainable, could only be examined under Article 227 of the Constitution and by a Bench assigned the appropriate roster.
On the other hand, the Respondent defended the Single Judge’s order, contending that the High Court possesses wide powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere with judicial orders where injustice is evident. It was argued that the executing court’s order was passed without adequate opportunity and warranted interference to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman reiterated that judicial orders passed by civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, making certiorari an impermissible remedy in such cases.
The Court clarified that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution remains intact and can be invoked to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of law. However, the Bench identified a deeper jurisdictional defect, the Single Judge had entertained a matter falling outside his assigned roster. The Court observed that “Once the power under jurisdiction exercised by each of the Judges is assigned by the Chief Justice, usurpation of power… would relate to an exercise of the jurisdiction without any authority, and… any order… is per se illegal.”
The Court further held that any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and must be “effaced” from judicial records. It stressed that roster allocation is not a procedural formality but a fundamental aspect of judicial discipline and institutional integrity.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court allowed the appeal and directed that the writ petition be restored and reclassified as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, to be placed before the appropriate roster Bench.
Case Title: M/s.NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Chief Engineer (Roads-1),
Case No.: W.A. No.237 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ Ble The Chief Justice Harish Tandon, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Sidhant Dwibedi,
Advocate for the Respondent: AGA Debashis Tripathy,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
