Orissa High Court
Chakradhara Sahoo vs Ramesh Chandra Nayak &Ors on 7 September, 2022
ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
W.P.(C) No.19869 of 2022
An application under Article 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950
Chakradhara Sahoo : Petitioner
-Versus-
Ramesh Chandra Nayak &Ors. : Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. S. Mohanty,
G.Das, N. Mohanty,
S. Jena, A. Garnayak,
S. Satapathy
For Opposite Party No.1(a) : Mr. G.N. Mishra
For Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. S.P. Panda,
Addl. Govt. Adv.
JUDGMENT
CORAM :
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
Date of hearing & judgment : 07.09.2022
1. On consent of all the parties this matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2. For the undisputed background involved herein this Court finds, in
the earlier round of litigation in disposal of W.P.(C) No.13419 of 2017
this High Court in paragraph No.7 therein on the ground of violation of
// 2 //
principle of natural justice interfered in the impugned order therein and
remitted the matter back to the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur-O.P.7 to
adjudicate the matter afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned. To avoid any further delay this Court through paragraph no.8
therein also directed the parties to appear before the Sub-Collector on 11th
April, 2022 to have opportunity of hearing and appeal was also directed
to be disposed of within a period of four months. Undisputedly the
present Petitioner was Opposite Party and the Writ Petition therein was
disposed of on contest of the Petitioner.
3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner taking this Court to
the nature of disposal of the remand proceeding vide Mutation Appeal
No.33of 2014, learned counsel for the Petitioner reading through the
same, contested the impugned order on the ground of violation of natural
justice and accordingly prayed for setting aside of such order and also a
direction thereby to the appellate authority for fresh disposal of the
appeal.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the contesting Opposite Party-the
Petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, taking this Court to the
direction in disposal of the earlier writ petition contended that once the
writ petition is decided in presence of such party and the present
Petitioner is aware of the direction therein, it becomes the duty of such
party to work-out accordingly. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
contesting Opposite Party not only alleged that there is deliberate latches
on the part of the Petitioner, but also taking this Court to the reason of
giving of ex parte order by the appellate authority as disclosed at the end
part of the paragraph, contended that even though the Petitioner did not
appear as per the direction of the High Court in disposal of the earlier
// 3 //
Writ Petition; the appellate authority had gone further in accommodating
the Petitioner by issuing a notice through registered post, which appears
to have been duly served on the Petitioner. It is, in this background of the
matter, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the contesting Opposite Party
taking this Court to the history of the case submitted that the litigation is
pending for over several decades and there should not be showing of any
sympathy to any of the parties and in the event this Court entertains such
matter, the party succeeded in appeal will suffer immensely for no fault of
him and will be deprived of the benefit of same for sole latches of the
Petitioner.
It is, in the above circumstance, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for
the contesting Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5. Mr. Panda, learned State Counsel in advancing his submission
supporting the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
contesting private Opposite Party also urged for dismissal of the Writ
Petition as there is no lacuna on the part of the Sub-Collector in disposing
the appeal in deliberate non-cooperation of the Petitioner.
6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties this Court finds,
there is no dispute that in the earlier disposal of the Writ Petition there is
already a direction for disposal of the appeal involved herein on
participation of the parties and such Writ Petition got disposed of
involving the present Petitioner. No doubt that in spite of giving the date
of appearance to the parties including the Petitioner, the Petitioner failed
in appearing. Further this Court again finds, to avoid any further
complications the appellate Court was also careful enough even in giving
further notice to the Petitioner through registered post, which appears to
have already been duly served on the Petitioner.
// 4 //
In the circumstance this Court finds, there has been deliberate
latches by the Petitioner and serious noncooperation even after
participating in the previous round of litigation and there is absence of
any satisfaction for such noncooperation, further there has been
unnecessary protraction of the litigation for the fault of the Petitioner and
for no fault of the private Opposite Parties, they are unable to enjoy the
benefit of such judgments twice. Be that as it may, since in earlier Writ
Petition there is a direction for disposal of the matter on contest of the
parties and as it appears, the proceeding has been concluded ex parte only
because of non-cooperation of the Petitioner even after service of notice
through registered post, this Court while interfering in the impugned
order observes, there should be exemplary cost as against the Petitioner to
avoid such contingency in future.
7. In the circumstance, this Court interfering in the impugned order at
Annexure-2 on technical ground and setting aside the same, remits the
matter to the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur to rehear and redispose of the
Mutation Appeal without being prejudiced by his observation already
there. In the process this Court also directs both the parties to appear
before the appellate authority along with a certified copy of this order on
15th September, 2022, 2022. To compensate the Private Opposite Parties
for their unnecessary suffering, this Court also imposes a cost of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only on the Petitioner to be paid to
the private Opposite Parties in the authority below on the date of
appearance itself. This Court makes it clear that in the event the Petitioner
fails to appear on the date fixed, the order dated 7.06.2022 will be
restored automatically and the cost imposed on the Petitioner will be
realized as civil cost by applying the provision under the O.P.D.R. Act.
// 5 //
8. The Writ Petition succeeds, however, with award of costs.
...............................
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 07th day of September 2022//
Ayaskanta Jena,
Senior Stenographer
