Orissa High Court
Prasanta Kumar Das & Others vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 29 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.846 of 2023
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
----------
Prasanta Kumar Das & Others .... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Petitioners - M/s.K.K. Swain &
S.C.D. Dash, (Advocates)
For Opp. Parties - Mr.U.C. Behura,
Addl. Government Advocate
M/s.Mr.Akshaya Ku. Pandey,
D.N. Mishra & N. Acharya
(Advocates for O.Ps.7 to 10)
----------
CORAM
MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 29.10.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
Petitioners are complaining before the Writ Court against the
order of the District Education Officer, Jagatsinghpur-Opposite
Party No.6 dated 05.12.2022, copy whereof avails at Annexure-3
whereby he has annulled the removal of one of the members of
Alumni Committee in question and found fault with induction of
other two by the Committee, which comprises of petitioners as
well.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks
invalidation of the impugned order (Annexure-3) on the following
four grounds:-
a. The District Education Officer has nothing to do with the
affairs of the Alumni Committee, which is a society registered
under the provisions of Society Registration Act, 1860;
b. The petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing nor
other stake holders were notified;
c. OP No.6 proceeded on a wrong premise that there is no
provision in the Memorandum of Association providing for
removal of the members; and
d. The due procedure has not been followed and therefore, the
petitioners are prejudiced.
3. Learned AGA Mr.Behura appearing for the official opposite
parties opposes the petition refuting the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioners. Firstly, he submits that the issue of
jurisdiction is hit by res judicata in view of a Co-ordinate Bench
decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.21743 of 2022 disposed off on
30.08.2022; opportunity of hearing had been given, is mentioned in
the impugned order itself and therefore, contention to the contrary
is wrong; the impugned order has been made by the District
Education Officer after following the due procedure.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant
indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
4.1. The first contention of petitioners that the District Education
Officer lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the affairs of the
Committee in question is liable to be rejected on the ground of res
judicata in view of the Co-ordinate Bench decision to which they
too were parties; that decision did confer jurisdiction on the
District Education Officer rightly or wrongly, the same having not
been put in challenge any further, it has attained finality. Reliance
of Mr.Swain, learned counsel for the petitioners on Apex Court
decision in State of Meghalaya v. Union of India; 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 613 to the effect that Court cannot confer jurisdiction
on an authority which otherwise lacks it, would not come to the
aid of his clients. As a broad proposition, its authenticity cannot be
disputed is true. In State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh & Ashok
Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 111, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court,
at paragraphs 5 & 6, has held that an order may be wrong;
however, it does not bear the brand of invalidity on its forehead;
unless set aside by a higher authority or Court, even a void order
would remain effective for all ostensible purposes. A judgment
being wrong because arguably it contravenes the established
norms of law is one thing and the efficacy of a wrong judgment is
another. A wrong judgment or a decree nevertheless attracts the
doctrine of res judicata and decision to that effect galore in the law
reports. Admittedly, the Co-ordinate Bench decision dated
30.08.2022 having attained finality, there being no further
challenge, its authenticity cannot be re-adjudicated by this Court in
a collateral proceeding like this, as rightly contended by
Mr.Behura, learned AGA.
4.2. The second contention of petitioners that they were not
given an opportunity of hearing appears to be true. Removal or
induction of members to the society/association is a serious thing.
It may balance or imbalance the decision making even in policy
matters. Therefore, such a course unilaterally cannot be
undertaken while adjudging a decision of removal or induction, as
the case may be, as submitted by learned counsel Mr.Swain. The
principles of natural justice are sacrosanct; at times they draw
sanctity from Article 14 jurisprudence. Added, even the God is
said to have given an opportunity of hearing to Adam & Eve
before punishing them for eating the proscribed apple in the Eden
Garden. That being the position, Mr. Swain, learned counsel for
the petitioners is right in flawing the impugned order and seeking
remittance of the matter for fresh consideration at the hands of the
authority, whichever it be.
4.3. The vehement contention of Mr.Behura, learned AGA that
the impugned order specifically mentions the opportunity of
hearing given to the stake holders, could not come to the rescue of
opposite parties, absolutely no evidentiary material vouching the
contention having been placed on record. Which postman carried
what mail to the petitioners is conspicuously left un-pleaded in the
counter. When absence of notice is pleaded, service thereof has to
be proved by him, who contends to the contrary. Therefore, the
said contention cannot be countenanced. At the same time, the
submission of petitioners' counsel that in the absence of a
provision in the Memorandum of Association that no member of
Association can ever be removed, cannot be countenanced, vide
Shenton v. Smith, 1895 AC 229 in the absence of prohibition
removal can be made on the proven misconduct. A contention in
variance would be disastrous to Association of the kind.
4.4. The last contention of Mr. Swain that due procedure has not
been followed need not be much examined by this Court,
inasmuch as the matter is being remitted to the portals of District
Education Officer-Opposite Party No.6 for consideration afresh
after giving opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders
including the petitioners in a time bound way.
In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds in part and
a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order
(Annexure-3); matter is remitted to District Education Officer-O.P.
No.6 for a fresh consideration after giving opportunity of
participation to all the stake holders including the petitioners
herein. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Remand to be
heard and decided within an outer limit of three (3) months.
In the fitness of things, the petitioners or the Alumni
Association shall not take any major policy decision nor any
decision having financial implications till after and subject to
decision on the remand.
Now, no costs.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 29th day of October, 2025/Basu
Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 31-Oct-2025 16:42:01
