Sakuntala Chanda @ Rana vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6267 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6267 Ori
Judgement Date : 25 June, 2025

Orissa High Court

Sakuntala Chanda @ Rana vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 25 June, 2025

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                     W.P.(C) No.11624 of 2025
        (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)


        Sakuntala Chanda @ Rana                           ....             Petitioner
                                           -versus-
        State of Odisha and others                        ....      Opposite Parties
                 Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
                                (Virtual/Physical Mode):

                  For Petitioner           -       Ms. Deepali Mohapatra,
                                                   Advocate.

                  For Opposite Parties           - Smt. J. Sahoo,
                                                   Addl. Standing Counsel

                  CORAM:
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing and Judgment :25.06.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for

quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure-7) passed by

the Sub-Collector, Puri (O.P. No.3) in Mutation Appeal Case No.79 of

2024 on the ground that, the said impugned order dated 20.02.2025

(Annexure-7) has been passed by the Sub-Collector, Puri (O.P. No.3)

without application of mind and without any reason.

2. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.

3. In order to bring the impugned order (Annexure-7) into picture, I

thought it proper to place the same on the record, which is as follows:-

"20.02.2025 The case is put up today after receipt of the LCR. Perused the order passed by the Mutation Officer on dt.29.07.2022 in Mutation Case No.2235/2022. Gone through the petition filed by the appellant against the impugned order passed by the Mutation Officer in Mutation Case No.2235/2022.

Taking into consideration the facts available on record, I hereby set aside the order dt.29.07.2022 passed by the Mutation Officer (Addl. Tahasildar, Puri) in Mutation Case No.2235/2022.

The Mutation Officer (Addl. Tahasildar, Puri) is directed to give opportunity of hearing to the appellant in this case and take into consideration the orders of the Hon'ble Civil Court as well as the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and pass an order as per law.

Pronounced in the open court today i.e. 20th February 2025. Intimate all concerned accordingly.



              Typed to my dictation
              and corrected by me.                                   Sd/-
              Sub-Collector, Puri                             Sub-Collector, Puri"

The above order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure-7) passed by O.P.

No.3 in Mutation Appeal Case No.79 of 2024 is a non-speaking order, as

the same is not backed/supported by any reason.

That apart, the O.P. No.3 has not given his own view in the

impugned order, why he (O.P. No.3) interfered with the impugned order

dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Addl. Tahasildar, Puri in Mutation Case

No.2235 of 2022.

For which, it is held that, the impugned order dated 20.02.2025

(Annexure-7) has been passed by the O.P. No.3 without application of

mind and without any reason. So, the impugned order vide Annexure-7 is

a non-speaking order.

4. It is the settled propositions of law that, when any order is not

backed/supported by any reason and the same is passed without

application of mind terming that order as non-speaking order, the said

order cannot be sustainable under law. Because as per law, that order is

against the principles of natural justice.

5. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in

the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Sebastiani Lakra and Ors. Vrs.

National Insurance Co. Ltd reported and another reported in 2018(4) CCC 50 (SC), every judicial order must contain reason. No judicial order is complete without reasons.

(ii) In a case between State of Rajasthan Vrs. Rajendra Prasad Jain reported in (2008)15 SCC 711, reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.

(iii) In a case between Atul Kuchhal Vrs. Hem Ram and another reported in 2015(1) CCC 640 (Rajasthan), an order which does not reveal ground for coming to a conclusion, the same falls in the category of non-speaking order.

(iv) In a case between U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vrs. Sheo Narain Kushwaha & Ors. reported in I (2012) Civ.L.T. 169 (SC) & Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vrs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in AIRONLINE 2021 SC 38, an unreasoned order shall be called as non-speaking order. The same cannot be sustainable under law.

A non-speaking order is held to be an order in violation of principles of natural justice.

(v) In a case between Andhra Bank, Cuttack Vrs. Raghunath Tripathy and others reported in 2017 (2) O.J.R. (889), when any judgment suffers from non-application of mind, the said judgment cannot be sustainable under law.

6. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the

above decisions of the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court to the impugned

order vide Annexure-7 passed by the Sub-Collector, Puri (O.P. No.3), it is

held that, the impugned order passed on dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure-7)

by the Sub-Collector, Puri (O.P. No.3) in Mutation Appeal Case No.79 of

2024 is not sustainable under law.

For which, there is justification under law for making interference

with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.

7. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

The same must succeed.

8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.

The impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure-7) passed in