Orissa High Court
Dr. Bibhuti Bhusan Lenka vs State Of Odisha And Others on 8 April, 2025
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Apr-2025 10:42:14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WRIT APPEAL No.1191 OF 2024
(From the order dated 02.04.2024 of the learned Single Judge passed in
W.P.(C) No.17316 of 2020)
Dr. Bibhuti Bhusan Lenka ...... Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and others ....... Respondents
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellant : Mrs. P. Rath, Senior Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. B. Dash, A.G.A.
Mr. A.R. Dash, Advocate
For Respondent No.3
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
08.04.2025
1. Heard Mrs. P. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant,
Mr. B. Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate for State-
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.3.
2. A piquant situation arose while disposing the writ petition filed by
the Petitioner assailing an order of suspension and consequent action
issued by the Society, Respondent No.3, in contemplation to initiation of
disciplinary proceeding. A specific plea was taken by the Appellant that,
the Society has no jurisdiction and/or competence either to initiate any
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Apr-2025 10:42:14
disciplinary proceeding or to pass an order of suspension as such power
is vested upon the Governing Body of the College in terms of the
Odisha Education (Establishment Recognition and Management of
Private Colleges Aided) Rules, 1991 as amended from time to time.
Such issue has not been disputed for the simple reason that the
Governing Body is vested with the power to initiate disciplinary
proceeding as well as to pass orders in due management and
administration of the College. The Single Bench accepted the contention
of the Appellant and held that this order of suspension and the
consequent action can only be issued by the Governing Body constituted
under the aforesaid Rules which has its statutory flavours and
consequently passed further order reverting the Petitioner to the feeder
post as all the promotional orders were issued by the Society and not by
the Governing Body.
3. The seminal point involves in the instant appeal is whether the
Writ Court can go beyond the reliefs claimed in the writ petition and
pass an order which is neither prayed for nor contemplated by the
litigant ?
4. In support of the aforesaid point, the reliance is placed upon a
judgment of the apex Court in the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari and
another vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and others, reported in
(2010) 1 SCC 234 wherein it is held that though all the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to a writ proceeding in stricto
sensu, but the principles akin and/or emanating therefrom are applicable
to a writ proceedings.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Apr-2025 10:42:14
5. It is no longer res integra that the principles emanating from the
Code of Civil Procedure would mutatis mutandis applies to a writ
proceedings which would further be corroborated from the writ rules
framed by the High Court. It is there contemplates the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure to apply in the writ proceedings as far as made
practicable. The importance of the pleading and the reliefs in an
adversary system of adjudication is not unknown. The court cannot
make out a new case nor would travel beyond the peripheral of the
pleadings as well as the reliefs claimed therein and should confine itself
within the four-corners of pleadings and the reliefs. The apex Court in
Bharat Amratlal Kothari and another (supra) held:
"29. The approach of the High Court in granting relief not
prayed for cannot be approved by this Court. Every petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution must contain a relief
clause. Whenever the petitioner is entitled to or is claiming
more than one relief, he must pray for all the reliefs. Under
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if the
plaintiff omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for
any particular relief which he is entitled to get, he will not
afterwards be allowed to sue in respect of the portion so
omitted or relinquished.
30. Though the provisions of the Code are not made
applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the general principles made in the Civil
Procedure Code will apply even to writ petitions. It is,
therefore, incumbent on the petitioner to claim all reliefs he
seeks from the court. Normally, the court will grant only
those reliefs specifically prayed for by the petitioner.
Though the court has very wide discretion in granting
relief, the court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Apr-2025 10:42:14
aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief,
grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner.
31. In Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow,
(1984) 1 SCC 307 overlooking the rule relating to grant of
admission to postgraduate course in Medical College, the
High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution directed the Medical Council to grant
provisional admission to the petitioner. This Court set aside
the order passed by the High Court observing that: (SCC p.
319, para 26)
"26. .. in his own petition in the High Court, the
respondent has merely prayed for a writ directing the
State or the college to consider his case for
admission yet the High Court went a step further and
straightway issued a writ of mandamus directing the
college to admit him to the MS course and thus
granted a relief to the respondent which he himself
never prayed for and could not have prayed for."
32. Again, in Om Prakash v. Ram Kumar, (1991) 1 SCC
441, this Court observed: (SCC p. 445, para 4)
"4. ... A party cannot be granted a relief which is
not claimed, if the circumstances of the case are
such that the granting of such relief would result in
serious prejudice to the interested party and deprive
him of the valuable rights under the statue."
33. Though a High Court has power to mould reliefs to
meet the requirements of each case, that does not mean that
the draftsman of a writ petition should not apply his mind
to the proper relief which should be asked for and throw the
entire burden of it upon the court."
6. In view of the law enunciated above, it is beyond cavil of doubts
that the Court cannot venture to travel beyond the circumference of the
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Apr-2025 10:42:14
pleadings and the reliefs claimed by the litigant except in an exceptional
and extra-ordinary circumstances where the reliefs initially claimed
becomes inappropriate by passage of time or because of the subsequent
events happened during the pendency of the litigation necessitating the
moulding of relief to render complete justice.
7. In the instant case, relief claimed by the Appellant was restricted
to the illegality in passing an order of suspension and the consequent
action which have no nexus to the promotion granted in course of the
service rendered by the Petitioner and therefore, the portion of the order
by which the Appellant is relegated back to the feeder post does not
appear to be legally sound. Accordingly, the portion of the order by
which the Appellant has been reverted to the post of Lecturer is hereby
set aside. The remaining portion of the order is unaltered. It has been
brought to our notice in course of hearing that the Governing Body has
already been constituted and have taken charge of the College. It is open
to the Governing Body to take action as permissible in law.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is
disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik, Secretary
