Orissa High Court
Subhadra Girls' High School vs State Of Odisha And Others on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1790 of 2023
Subhadra Girls' High School, Itipur ... Appellant
Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others ... Respondents
Mr. R.N. Mishra, Addl. Govt. Advocate (State)
Mr. S.C.D. Dash, Advocate (R/4)
CORAM:
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 09.10.2023
02. 1. Heard Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, learned counsel appearing for
the Appellant, Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State-Respondents and Mr. S.C.D. Dash, learned
counsel for Respondent No.4.
2. At the outset, Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the Appellant
states that the impugned order has been passed on 14th July, 2023
in W.P.(C) No.20677 of 2023 by the learned Single Judge to whom
the matter was not assigned as per roster. Even the Appellant, who
is a person aggrieved, was not impleaded as a party in the said writ
petition. Therefore, being aggrieved by the impugned order passed
by the learned Single Judge, the Appellant has approached this
Court and vide order dated 10th August, 2023 this Court had
entertained the appeal at the instance of the Appellant.
3. It is further contended that since the learned Single Judge has no
jurisdiction to decide the matter as it was not assigned to him,
particularly when, it relates to academic matter, therefore, the
impugned order cannot be sustained. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the Appellant places reliance on the judgment
of this Court rendered in Darasongh Kumbar v. State of Orissa,
2004 (II) OLR 707.
4. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Appellant further contended
that without giving the opportunity of hearing to the Appellant, the
impugned order has been passed. Therefore, the same cannot be
sustained. The order has been passed by the learned Single Judge
in absence of the correct facts being brought to his notice that the
matter was settled by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3738 of 2013
disposed of on 9th May, 2017, which was confirmed in W.A.
No.148 of 2017. Thereby, the impugned order so passed by the
learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.
5. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State-Respondents contended that since the
matter had been assigned to the Court No.I, he has rightly decided
the matter, instead of stating that he has no jurisdiction.
6. Mr. S.C.D. Dash, learned counsel for Respondent No.4
contended that Respondent No.4 is one of the members, who
sought direction for reconstitution of the Managing Committee.
Therefore, he approached the learned Single Judge and after
hearing him the impugned order was passed. Thereby no illegality
has been committed by passing such order.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the materials available on record, we are of the view that
the initial question raised by Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for
the Appellant, that the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to
entertain such writ petition, as the matter was not assigned to him,
has got ample force, in view of the judgment rendered by this
Court in Darasongh Kumbar (supra), wherein it has already been
decided by this Court that the assigned Court should decide the
matter. In the present case, if the matter was not assigned, the
learned Single Judge should not have disposed of the same. It was
to be verified by the Registry whether the matter can be assigned to
the learned Single Judge to decide the issue. Otherwise also the
order so passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in
the eye of law. Although the issue involved in the writ petition had
already been decided by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3738 of 2013
disposed of on 9th May, 2017 and the same was confirmed in writ
appeal vide order dated 13.10.2022 passed in W.A. No.148 of
2017 (Bhabagrahi Das Vrs. Subhadra Girls' High School), the
said fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge,
as a result of which, the order was passed for reconstitution of the
Managing Committee, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Apart from the same, the impugned order passed by the learned
Singe Judge is without compliance of the principles of natural
justice and without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant,
for which the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 14th July, 2023 passed in
W.P.(C) No.20677 of 2023 is hereby set aside. The writ petition
stands revived and may be placed before the assigned Bench for
fresh consideration.
8. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
SK Jena/Secy.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 12-Oct-2023 12:58:25
