[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Trilochan Biswal vs State Of Orissa & Others .... Opposite ... on 15 January, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 21011 of 2025
Trilochan Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC
Mr. T.S. Swaraj, Advocate (O.P.3)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
15.01.2026
Order No.
08. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.
2. Answering the question of maintainability
raised, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring
to the judgment of this Court in the case of
Sasmita Pradhan vs. The District Collector-
cum-District Election Officer, Puri & ors., 2007
(Supp.-II) OLR - 875 submits that the writ
petition is maintainable.
3. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3
relying on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Sanjeeb Kumar Kar vs.
Anadi Charan Giri & another, 2025 SCC OnLine
Ori 2792 wherein the judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel for the Petitioner in the case of
Sasmita Pradhan (Supra) has been considered,
submits that this Court held that the judgment in
Sasmita Pradhan (Supra) is per in curium and in
this context attention of this Court is drawn to para-
6.6 of the judgment in the case of Sanjeeb Kumar
Kar (Supra). For convenience of reference the said
paragraph is extracted hereunder:-
"In view of the clear provisions contained
under sub-section 3 & 4 of Section 38 of the
Act and the decisions in the case of Jindal
Export Ltd., Hyder Consultancy (UK)
Ltd. and Shah Faesel as cited (supra), the
view expressed by this Court in the case
of Niranjan Sahu, so followed in the case
of Sasmita Pradhan as per the considered
view of this Court are per in curium and has
got no binding effect. Not only that decision
in the case of Niranjan Sahu was also
rendered, without following the earlier
decision of this Court rendered in the case
of Digambar Pradhan v. Arjun Pradhan, 1972
(1) CWR 74. This Court in para 4 of the said
decision held as follows:
4. Under Section 38(4) of the Act
any person aggrieved by an order of
the Munsif may within thirty days
from the date of the order prefer an
appeal before the District Judge
having jurisdiction who shall, after
giving the parties an opportunity of
being heard, confirm, reverse, alter or
modify the order of the Munsif. The
point urged by Mr. Patnaik can be fully
canvassed in appeal. Law is now well
settled that this Court can exercise
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution even in
relation to a case where there is an
equally efficacious alternative remedy.
But the Court must always exercise
discretion whether the jurisdiction
should be exercised or not. When we
are satisfied that the aforesaid point
can be canvassed adequately to
appeal we do not propose to exercise;
our jurisdiction in this case. In other
words, in appeal it is open to Mr.
Patnaik to contend that the inspection
and recounting that has been
permitted by the Munsif is not justified
by law.
The decision in the case of Aniruddha
Jena as per the considered view of this
Court has laid down the correct position of
law."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks an
adjournment to address this Court on the question
of maintainability in the light of the judgment in the
case of Sanjeeb Kumar Kar (Supra).
5. List this matter on 29.01.2026 at 2:00 P.M.
6. Interim order passed earlier shall continue
till the next date.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
(V. Narasingh)
Date: 16-Jan-2026 18:14:25 Judge
Ayesha
