Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Bhakta Bandhu Sahoo on 18 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 108 of 2024
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Mr. Bimbisar Dash, Additional Government Advocate
-versus-
Bhakta Bandhu Sahoo .... Respondent
Mr. G.P. Jena, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 18.11.2024
11. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. The State of Odisha, in the present writ appeal has put to
challenge an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court
dated 30.08.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 21136 of 2022 whereby
the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed with the
following observation and direction:-
"4. In that view of the matter, since the
petitioner is continuing as DLR and work charge
employee under the Superintending Engineer,
Head Works Division, Samal, Angul and completed
30 years of service in the meantime and even
though his appointment is irregular he should be
regularized in service in view of the judgments of
the apex Court in Umadevi and M.L.Keshari
(supra), as well as Amarkamti Rai v. State of Bihar
and others, (2015) 8 SCC 265.
5. In view of such position, the Opposite Party
No.2 is directed to regularize the service of the
petitioners within a period of three months from the
date of passing of this order."
3. The writ petition was filed on 17.08.2022 and it was listed for
admission for the first time on 30.08.2022. On the same day, the
writ petition came to be disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
4. Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing on behalf of the State has raised various issues disputing
the factual details as asserted in the writ petition based on which
only the learned Single Judge granted the relief which the
respondent had sought. He has submitted that apparently the State
was not given any opportunity to file its response to the averments
made in the writ petition. He has drawn our attention to Rule-9 of
Chapter XV of the Rules of High Court of Orissa, 1948 to contend
that the opposite parties in the writ petition ought to have been
given an opportunity to show cause against the relief sought for by
the respondent in the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has
submitted that taking into account the long period during which the
respondent had served in work-charged establishment, the learned
Single Judge rightly passed an order to regularize his service.
6. The settled legal principle that if law requires an authority to do
something in a particular manner, that should be done in that
manner alone or not at all, equally applies in a proceeding under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India also, particularly when the
High Court has framed rules concerning the disposal of applications
under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution. Chapter-XV of
the Rules of the High Court of Orissa lays down the procedure for
disposal of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and states in Rule-9 as under:-
"9. Unless the Court sees no sufficient cause to
admit the application and rejects it, notice of the
application shall be served on all parties to the
proceedings to show cause by a date fixed and where
the application relates to any proceedings in or before
a Subordinate Court or authority and the object is
either to compel such Court or any officer thereof or
any authority to do and act in relation to such
proceedings or to quash them or any order made
therein, notice to show cause shall also be served on
such Court or officer or authority, as the case may be,
with directions to produce or cause production of the
records of the proceeding along with its or his return.
Every notice under this rule shall be accompanied by
copies of the application and affidavit and annexures,
if any."
7. It is manifest on a plain reading of Rule-9 of Chapter-XV of the
Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 that unless the court sees
no sufficient cause to admit the application and rejects it, "notice of
application is required to be served on all parties to the proceedings
to show cause by a date fixed". Unless the parties are afforded
opportunity to consider the pleadings in a writ petition and file
response, if so required, no positive order granting relief can be
passed.
8. In our considered view, the writ petition can be dismissed, in
the light of Rule-9 of Chapter-XV of the Rules of the High Court of
Orissa, if no sufficient cause is found to admit the application.
Otherwise, the parties to the proceeding are required to be given
opportunity to show cause by a date fixed. Barring exceptional
circumstances, the procedure prescribed under Rule-9 of Chapter-
XV of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa cannot be ignored.
9. On this solitary ground the impugned order passed by the
learned single judge deserves interference. Accordingly, the order
dated 30.08.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 21136 of 2022 is set aside.
10. W.P.(C) No. 21136 of 2022 is restored to its original file to be
placed before the appropriate bench according to the assignment.
11. The writ appeal is allowed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)
Chief Justice
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Arun Mishra
Designation: ADR-Cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 21-Nov-2024 15:30:44
