##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.408 of 2026 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited …. Appellant -Versus-

Union of India, through General …. Respondent Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellant: Mr. Kishore Datta, Senior Advocate Mr. Alok Ranjan Mohanty, Advocate Ms. Sumita Shaw, Advocate Mr. Chetan Kabra, Advocate For Respondent: Mr. N. Venkatraman, Addl. Solicitor General Mr. P.K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General Mr. Biswajit Maharana, Senior Panel Counsel CORAM:

HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 2^nd May, 2026 Date of Judgment : 28^th July, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. In recent times, a practice has developed at the bar in making a composite application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the same is registered by assigning the appropriate classification of the subject when different classifications are ascribed to in working of the category of cases and special assignment is made by the Chief Justice to different Courts. It is a common practice in this Court by assigning the different nomenclature and numbers to an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, i.e., W.P.(C) and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, i.e., CMP. The moment a composite application is filed and a particular category is resorted to in registration thereof, it ordinarily goes to a Bench who is assigned the roster/determination to take up such application. It is no longer res integra that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and assigns the category of the cases to be dealt with by the respective Benches and, thus, the usurpation of the powers not expressly assigned is per se illegal as the order would be termed as an order without jurisdiction.

2. In an identical situation, this Bench in NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd., Haryana Vs. Chief Engineer (Roads-1), Bhubaneswar, 2026 ILR-CUT ONLINE 1081 held in the following:

“15. It is well settled that the Chief Justice is the master of the Roster. It segregates the category of cases to be dealt by each of the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court which ipso facto leads to an inescapable inference that category of cases which are not assigned to a particular Judge, cannot be taken up by the said Judge. Once the power under jurisdiction exercised by each of the Judges is assigned by the Chief Justice, usurpation of power dehors such category of cases would relate to an exercise of the jurisdiction without any authority, and, therefore, any order is passed by a Bench having not assigned the Roster/determination is per se illegal.

16. Though we do not find any infirmity in exercise of the jurisdiction as a plea of demur was not taken by the appellant nor do we find any reference thereof in the impugned order, once such plea is taken in the instant appeal as a plea of jurisdiction which strikes at the root of the exercise of power, we permit such point to be taken and decided in the instant writ appeal.”

3. It leads to an another inescapable perception that in the event the Bench exercises the jurisdiction not assigned to it by the Chief Justice, any order passed is in excess of such jurisdiction. It will also give a leeway to unscrupulous litigants to resort to the forum shopping, which is deprecated in catena of decisions rendered by the Courts of this country. The litigants shall not be permitted to resort to forum non conveniens, nor shall they be permitted to disrupt the jurisdictional framework assigned to the Bench or invite the Court to entertain and pass an order.

4. This is one of the classic examples where a party has taken recourse to the jurisdiction exercised by the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and despite the fact that the