ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.37640 of 2025

India. ***

Sitaram Naik

… Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

State of Odisha & Others

… Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jayadeba Behera, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.

(For the State)

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE

Date of Hearing : 06.01.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 06.01.2026

JUDGMENT

1.

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Tahasildar, Khaprakhole (Opp. Party No.4) to carry out (implement) the order passed by the Sub- Collector, Patnagarh (Opp. Party No.3) issued through Letter No.3429 dated 05.12.2016 to the Tahasildar, Khaprakhole (Opp. Party No.4).

2. Heard from the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The law relating to the scope of interference of the High Court in the matter of non-implementation of the directions issued by the superior officers in the Government to their sub- ordinate officers has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision of the Apex Court.

In a case between Jayamma & Others Vrs. Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, Dist., Hassan & Others (Para No.10) reported in III (2013) CLT 94 (SC) that, if a subordinate authority in the Government does not act in terms of the directions or instructions issued by the superior officers, it is not for the High Court to compel that subordinate authority to comply with the instructions or directions issued by the superior authority of the Government. Because, High Court is not the executing forum of instruction issued by the higher authorities of the Government. It is the duty of the superior officer of the Government (who had directed to the sub-ordinate officer) to see that, his order is properly implemented, but not the High Court to implement such direction.

4. So, by applying the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decision of the Apex Court to this matter at hand, it is felt proper to dispose of this writ petition finally giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Sub-Collector, Patnagarh (Opp. Party No.3) by filing an application annexing the certified copy of this Judgment praying for implementation of the order/direction issued through Letter No.3429 dated 05.12.2016 to the Tahasildar, Khaprakhole (Opp. Party No.4) and in case of non-response to the same by the Sub-Collector, Patnagarh (Opp. Party No.3), the petitioner can approach this Court seeking appropriate relief for the same.

5. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)

Signature N ot V erified JUDGE Digitally Signed High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Signed by: RATI RTAhNe J0A6N .0 N1A. 2Y0A2K6// Rati Ranjan Nayak Reason: Authentic S a r t . io S n tenographer Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.

Date: 08-Jan-2026 11:14:21