The main legal point established is that in writ proceedings, the caveator should be given an opportunity of hearing before any order is passed, as per the provisions of Section 148-A of the Civil Procedure Code and the nature of writ proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

This is an intra-Court appeal preferred by caveator appellants assailing the order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.19266 of 2015 in allowing the writ application on the first day itself at the stage of fresh admission without giving any opportunity of hearing.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the caveator appellants, who are elected representatives being the Sarpanchs of Tasaladihi and Tangarpalli Grama Panchayats in the district of Sundargarh, passed a resolution on 02.10.2015 for restricting the movement of multi-axle vehicles through the M.D.R. Road No.27 in the district of Sundergarh from Bankibahal to Sundergarh which includes MDR-27 (22 KMs), MDR-29 (13 KMs) and ODR (5 KMs). The Grama Panchayats are located in schedule areas and are governed by the provisions of Panchayat (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996. The resolutions of the Grama Panchayats were forwarded to the State Government to declare the road between Coalmines and Sundergarh as no traffic zone for the multi-axle vehicles (18/22 wheelers) in view of numerous accidents caused due to narrowness of road, traffic congestion and location of different offices, government establishments and district headquarter hospitals. Considering the number of representations received from the persons/organizations/Sundergarh Truck Owners’ Association, etc. to impose restriction on movement of multi-axle vehicles, especially 18 and 22 wheelers on Sundergarh to Taperia road under R&B Division, Sundergarh, the State Government in Commerce and Transport Department, vide its letter no.6785 dated 19.10.2015, on the recommendation of the EIC-cum-Secretary to Government, Works Department to impose restriction on plying of multi-axle vehicles (especially trailers of 18 and 22 wheelers or longer dimension) on the road from Sundegarh to Bankibahal considering inadequate crust, dilapidated condition of carriageway/culverts/deficient horizontal curves, etc., requested the Collector-cum-Chairman, RTA, Sundergarh to take immediate appropriate action as per Section 115 and other relevant sections as would be necessary under the M.V. Act, 1988 till improvement of the road. Assailing the said order, respondent no.6-M/s Biswajit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. filed WP(C) No.19266 of 2015 and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 26.10.2015, on the first day, without affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants, though the caveat petition lodged by the appellants was on record and the names of the counsel for the caveator-appellants had been shown in the cause list.

3. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Digambara Mishra, learned counsel for the caveator-appellants strenuously urged that the appellants, being people’s representatives, raised an objection for plying of multi-axle vehicles on the road in question and lodged a caveat before this Court with a prayer to give them opportunity of hearing in the event the order no.6785 dated 19.10.2015 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government in Department of Commerce and Transport is assailed. It is further urged that the road in question being narrow, due to plying of multi-axle vehicles, the local commuters are facing a lot of difficulties and accidents are being caused frequently and, therefore, plying of such vehicles should be banned on the road in question. The specific submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the appellants, although entered caveat, have been deprived of opportunity of hearing, inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge by the order impugned has disposed of the matter as a Vacation Judge on the first date of its listing.

4. Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Department submitted that objection was raised at the time of disposal of the writ application by the learned Single Judge stating, that the writ application was premature in view of the fact that the letter dated 19.10.2015, which