SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 591

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
Mr.Sukadev Biswal - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Odisha & Others - Opposite Parties
WP(C) No.33204 of 2024
Decided On : 29-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.B.Sahu, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties :Ms.J.Sahoo, A.S.C. Mr.K.A.Guru, Advocate

Orders passed without compliance with natural justice principles are unsustainable and subject to quashing for re-evaluation and proper hearing.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Principles of natural justice - Writ petition challenging the final order in Mutation Appeal due to lack of hearing - The impugned order by the Sub-Collector was found unsustainable as it violated the principles of natural justice due to non-compliance with due process. (Paras 1-4)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - The court noted the necessity for a proper hearing and found merit in the writ petition to allow intervention and remittance for a fresh decision. (Paras 5-10)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner filed a writ petition contesting an earlier order passed without the opportunity to be heard in Mutation Appeal No.19 of 2017. The Sub-Collector's action raised issues of due process.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the Sub-Collector's order and mandated a fresh hearing, noting the importance of principles of natural justice in administrative decision-making.

Issues: The court addressed whether the Petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to present their case in the original hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized that orders failing to adhere to principles of natural justice are subject to quashing and require proper re-evaluation after proper hearings.

Result: Writ petition allowed in part; order quashed and matter remitted back for fresh considerations.

Table of Content
1. challenge to impugned order due to lack of hearing. (Para 1)
2. representation from all parties heard in court. (Para 2)
3. impugned order violated natural justice principles. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
4. writ petition allowed in part; final disposal. (Para 7 , 10 , 11)
5. quashing of order and remittal for fresh hearing. (Para 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the final order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure-3) passed in Mutation Appeal No.19 of 2017 by the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) on the ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice i.e. without hearing from the Petitioner.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.4 and 5 and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 to 3.

3. It is well evident from the impugned order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure-3) passed in Mutation Appeal No.19 of 2017 by the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) that, no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner, though, the Petitioner was the said Respondent No.1 in the said appeal.

For which, it is held that, the impugned order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure-3) has been passed by the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) in Mutation Appeal No.19 of 2017 without complying the principles of natural justice.

4. So, the said impugned order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure-3) passed by the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) cannot be sustainable under law.

5. Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference with the same through this writ petition by the Petitioner.

6. As such, there is some merit in the writ petition filed by the Petitioner and the same is to be allowed in part.

7. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part.

8. The impugned order dated 19.11.2024 passed in Mutation Appeal No.19 of 2017 by the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur (O.P.No.2) is quashed.

9. The matter vide Mutation Appeal No.19 of 2017 is remitted back to the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) for deciding the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the Parties thereof in full compliance of the principles of natural justice as expeditiously as possible within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the Parties before the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) in Mutation Appeal No.19 of 2017.

10. The Parties of this writ petition are directed to appear before the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) in Mutation Appeal No.19 of 2017 on dated 10.11.2025 and to file the certified copy of this judgment for the purpose of receiving directions of the O.P. No.2 as to the further proceedings of the Mutation Appeal No.19 of 2017 on the basis of the directions given in this judgment.

11. As such, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is disposed of finally.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top