Writ petitions can be maintained despite alternate remedies if government officials act contrary to law, emphasizing the necessity of adherence to procedural standards in administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1.This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the impugned order dated 20.09.2025 passed in Mutation Appeal Case No.33 of 2025 by the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh (Opp. Party No.2).

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The case of the petitioners is that, the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh (Opp. Party No.2) passed the impugned order on dated 20.09.2025 in Mutation Appeal Case No.33 of 2025 filed by the Tahasildar, Ranpur and set aside the impugned order passed in Mutation Case No.817 of 2025 on dated 25.02.2025 in Mutation Case No.817/2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar-Cum- Mutation-Officer, Ranpur assigning the reasons that, order dated 25.02.2025 in Mutation Case No.817 of 2025 was passed by the Addl. Tahasildar-Cum-Mutation-Officer, Ranpur without following the proper procedures of Mutation Manual.

On being dissatisfied with the said impugned order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh (Opp. Party No.2) in setting aside the order dated 25.02.2025 passed in Mutation Case No.817 of 2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar- Cum-Mutation-Officer, Ranpur, the petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the same praying for quashing the said order dated 25.02.2025 passed in Mutation Case No.817 of 2025 on the ground that, when the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh (Opp. Party No.2) found that, the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 in Mutation Case No.817 of 2025 was passed by the Addl. Tahasildar-Cum-Mutation-Officer, Ranpur without following the proper procedures of Mutation Manual, then, it was incumbent upon him as per law to remand the matter vide Mutation Case No.817 of 2025 to the Addl. Tahasildar- Cum-Mutation-Officer, Ranpur for deciding the same afresh following the proper procedures of the Mutation Manual, but the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh (Opp. Party No.2) has not done so. For which, the impugned order passed by the Sub- Collector, Nayagarh (Opp. Party No.2) in Mutation Appeal Case No.33 of 2025 is interfereable through this writ petition.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the State objected to the maintainability of this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 filed by the petitioners on the ground that, as per Para No.111 of the Mutation Manual, against the impugned order passed by the Sub- Collector, Nayagarh (Opp. Party No.2), revision before the Commissioner is maintainable, but not this writ petition.

5. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been settled in the ratio of the following decision.

In a case between M/s. Kalinga Tubes Limited Vs. State of Orissa & Others decided on 30.04.1974 in O.J.C. No.918 of 1972 that, when the Opp. Parties (Government Officials) appear to have acted contrary to law, then, even if alternate remedy is available, still then, writ is maintainable to challenge the same.

Here in this matter at hand, when the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh (Opp. Party No.2) has passed the impugned order in Mutation Appeal Case No.33 of 2025 for setting aside order dated 25.02.2025 passed in Mutation Case No.817 of 2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar-Cum-Mutation-Officer, Ranpur on the ground of non-following the proper procedures of Mutation Manual and when it was the lawful duty of the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh (Opp. Party No.2) to remand the matter i.e. Mutation Case No.817 of 2025 to the Addl. Tahasildar-Cum- Mutation-Officer, Ranpur to decide the same afresh as per law following the proper procedures of Mutation Manual and when, the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh (Opp. Party No.2) instead of remanding the Mutation Case No.817 of 2025 to the Addl. Tahasildar-Cum-Mutatio