Saturday, 16, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Bhagaban Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10678 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 10678 Ori
Judgement Date : 29 November, 2025

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Bhagaban Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 29 November, 2025

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                   W.P.(C) No.30924 of 2025

              (An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)



              Bhagaban Sahu                                ....            Petitioner
                                             -versus-
              State of Odisha and others                   ....      Opposite Parties


                         Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
                                   (Virtual/Physical Mode):
                        For Petitioner       -       Mr. G. Mishra,
                                                     Advocate.

                        For Opposite Parties-        Mr. S. Nayak,
                                                     Learned Additional Sanding Counsel

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

Date of Hearing :29.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :29.11.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for

directing the Tahasildar, Brahamgiri(Opposite Party No.3) in the district

of Puri for executing the final order dated 24.01.2011 passed in S.R.P.

No.55 of 2010 by the Commissioner Consolidation, Odisha,

Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2). Because, the direction, which was

given by the Commissioner Consolidation, Odisha,

Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2) in S.R.P. No.55 of 2010 to the

Tahasildar, Brahamgiri(Opposite Party No.3) for execution of the same,

but, the same has not been executed till yet.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been

clarified by the Apex Court in a case between Jayamma and others

vrs. The Dy. Commr. Hassan Dist. Hassan and others : reported in

2013(3) Civil Law Times-94 that,

"if a Sub-ordinate authorities in Government does not act in terms of directions or instructions issued by the superior authority, it is not for the High Court to compel that, Sub-ordinate authority to comply with the instructions or directions issued by the superior authority. Because, High Court is not the executing forum of the instructions issued by the Government or superior officers of the Government to their Sub-ordinate Officers, because, it is the duty of the superior officer(who passed the order) to see the implementation of its own order by its Sub-ordinate. The High Court is not the executing forum of instructions/directions issued by the Superior Authority of the Government to its Subordinate Officers. So, it is the duty of the Superior Authority of the Government(who passed the order) to implement his/her own order properly."

4. In view of the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in

the ratio of the aforesaid decision, it is the duty of the superior officer of

the Government to see that, his/her order/direction is implemented by its

sub-ordinate officer, to whom, the direction was issued for

implementation.

5. So, by applying the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of

the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it is felt proper to dispose of

this writ petition finally giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the

authority, i.e., Commissioner Consolidation, Odisha,

Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2), who had passed the order on dated

24.01.2011 passed in S.R.P. No.55 of 2010 by filing an application for its

proper implementation by the Tahasildar, Brahamgiri(Opposite Party

No.3), annexing the certified copy of this judgment and in case of non-

response to the same, the petitioner can approach the High Court seeking

appropriate relief concerning non-response of his application by

Commissioner Consolidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party

No.2).

6. So, with the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ

petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

(A.C. Behera), Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 29th of November, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.

Designation: Personal Assistant

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter