Orissa High Court
Sarat Nayak @ Sarat Chandra vs Commissioner Consolidation on 30 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17243 of 2025
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, 1950)
Sarat Nayak @ Sarat Chandra .... Petitioner
Nayak
-versus-
Commissioner Consolidation, .... Opposite Parties
Bhubaneswar and others
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr.Hrudananda Mohapatra,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr.Sachidanada Nayak,
Learned Additional Sanding Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :30.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment :30.10.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying
for quashing the impugned order dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure-5)
passed in Revision Case No.775 of 2009 by the Commissioner
Consolidation, Bhubaneswar (O.P No.1).
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
counsel for the O.P. Nos.2 to 6 and the learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioner was the O.P. No.1 in Revision Case No.775 of
2009 before the Commissioner Consolidation, Bhubaneswar (O.P
No.1).
4. Nowhere, in the impugned order dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure-
5) passed in Revision Case No.775 of 2009 by the Commissioner
Consolidation, Bhubaneswar (O.P No.1), it has been
indicated/reflected about any hearing from the O.P. No.1 in Revision
Case No.775 of 2009.
When, the impugned order vide Annexure-5 does not reveal
about providing any opportunity of hearing to the O.P. No.1 in the
said Revision (Petitioner in this writ petition), then at this juncture, it
is held that, the impugned order vide Annexure-5 has been passed by
the O.P. No.1 without complying the principles of natural justice.
5. The law concerning the maintainability of a writ petition under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 despite
availability of an alternative remedy has already been clarified by
the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Whirlpool Corporation vrs.
Registrar of Trade Marks : reported in (1998) 8 SCC-1
that,
Despite availability of an alternative remedy, a writ
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 can be entertained in the following cases:-
(a) Where principles of natural justice are
breached.
(b) Where fundamental rights are sought to be
enforced or breach thereof is complained of
(c) Where the impugned order is passed by an
authority without justification.
(d) Where the Constitutionability of any provision is
called in question.
(ii) In a case between The Assistant Commissioner of
State Tax and others vrs. M/s. Commercial Steel
Limited : reported in (2022) 16 SCC-447 that,
despite availability of an alternative remedy, a writ
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 can be entertained in the following cases :-
(i) An access of jurisdiction.
(ii) A breach of fundamental rights.
(iii) A violation of the principles of natural justice.
(iv) A challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated
legislation.
6. Here in this matter at hand, when the Petitioner has challenged
the impugned order dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure-5) passed in
Revision Case No.775 of 2009 by the Commissioner Consolidation,
Bhubaneswar (O.P No.1) by filing this writ petition under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and when it is held
above that, the impugned order vide Annexure-5 has been passed by
the Commissioner Consolidation, Bhubaneswar (O.P No.1) violating
the principles of natural justice i.e. without giving any opportunity of
being heard to the O.P. No.1 of the said Revision Case No.775 of
2009 (Petitioner in this writ petition), then at this juncture, by
applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid
decisions, there is justification under law for making interference
with the said impugned order dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure-5)
through this writ petition filed by the Petitioner.
7. As such, there is some merit in the writ petition filed by the
petitioner. The same is to be allowed in part.
8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in
part.
9. The impugned order dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure-5) passed in
Revision Case No.775 of 2009 by the Commissioner Consolidation,
Bhubaneswar (O.P No.1) is quashed.
10. The matter, i.e., Revision Case No.775 of 2009 is remitted
back to the Commissioner Consolidation, Bhubaneswar (O.P No.1)
for deciding the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of
being heard to the Parties thereof including the Petitioner of this writ
petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of
two months from the date of filing of the certified copy of this
judgment by the Parties before the O.P No.1 in Revision Case
No.775 of 2009 with a liberty to the Parties including Petitioner of
this writ petition to agitate their all grounds/contentions in their
favour including maintainability of the revision before the
Revisional Authority.
11. The Parties to this writ petition are directed to appear before
the O.P. No.1 on dated 10.11.2025 and to file certified copy of this
judgment in Revision Case No.775 of 2009 for the purpose of
receiving directions of the O.P. No.1 as to further proceedings of
Revision Case No.775 of 2009 on the basis of the observations made
in this judgment.
12. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed
of finally.
Digitally Signed (A.C. Behera),
Reason: Authentication Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 31-Oct-2025 11:31:51
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 30th of October, 2025/ Binayak Sahoo, Jr.Stenographer
