Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C. BEHERA
Gantasethy Rama Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions filed due to impugned orders (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners' arguments against impugned orders (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. non-impleadment and lack of notice (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. principles of natural justice and case law (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. writ maintainability despite alternative remedy (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. writ petitions allowed and orders quashed (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
Since all these 27 numbers of writ petitions have arisen out of one case vide OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 under Section 3-A of The Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956, then all the writ petitions are taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common judgment.
For which, they (petitioners) challenged the impugned orders passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 against them by filing these writ petitions praying for quashing the said impugned orders dated 25.10.2023 and 29.11.2023 respectively passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput.
4. During the course of hearing, the learned counsels for the petitioners contended that, the above impugned orders passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 (those are under challenge) cannot be sustainable under law and the same are liable to
The court held that failure to provide an opportunity to be heard violates natural justice, warranting quash of orders and remand of case for fresh hearing with inclusion of affected parties.
Orders issued without compliance with principles of natural justice are deemed illegal; all parties must be given a chance to be heard.
The failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to a party in the proceedings contravenes the principles of natural justice, rendering the order invalid.
The court affirmed that procedural fairness and the right to be heard are fundamental under the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, highlighting jurisdictional limits when voiding third-party rights wi....
The court ruled that a successive writ petition concerning the same issue cannot be maintained after a prior dismissal for non-prosecution and is barred by delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
