Page 1 of 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P(C) No.12286 of 2022

(Through hybrid mode)

Sanatana Tandia and another

&.

Petitioners

Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate

-versus-

Collector-cum-DM, Boudh and

others

&.

Opposite Parties

Mr. P.C. Panda, AGA

Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate

for O.P.3

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

Order No.

ORDER

19.05.2022

02.

1.

Mr. Palit, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of

petitioners and submits, by impugned order dated 5^th May, 2022

passed by Collector and District Magistrate, Boudh, membership of

his clients have been impliedly invalidated. He refers to following

passage from impugned order, reproduced below.

<In view of my findings and observation given above, I am

of the view that the DCS, a prime institution of Sports of the

District cannot be given with a liberty to act autocratically

and it is held that the memberships which were taken

prior/till the year 2013 including the life members that is to

say 109 numbers in total are held to be genuine one and

they have the authority to exercise all the powers of a valid

member and the memberships taken in the year 2016 and

2020 cannot be taken as accepted until they are accepted

properly. Their memberships will be accepted or declined

as per the guidelines and by-laws of the Association and it

// 2 //

Page 2 of 5

will be decided by the new body. For smooth and impartial

election, the ADM, Boudh, the District Sports Officer,

Boudh and a representative duly nominated by Odisha

Cricket Association (OCA) will have the authority under

whose supervision the upcoming election of DCA, Boudh

will be held.) =

2.

He submits, though this Bench by order dated 13^th May, 2022

in writ petition W.P.(C) no.12060 of 2022 (District Cricket

Association, Boudh vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Boudh

and others) held that the Collector in having complied with directions

made in order dated 1^st Jul, 2020 passed by Co-ordinate Bench in

W.P.(C) no.15580 of 2020, thereby assumed jurisdiction but the order,

being impugned order herein, is without authority or jurisdiction.

However, in paragraph 8 of said order this Bench provided for

contingency, whereby impugned order having been set aside, would

revive. He submits, when this Bench had found that impugned order

was without jurisdiction it became null, non est and void ab initio.

There cannot be a contingency where it can be revived. He relies on

judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepak Agro Foods vs. State of

Rajasthan, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 748, paragraph 17, reproduced

below.

<All irregular or erroneous or even illegal orders cannot be

held to be null and void as there is a fine distinction between the

orders which are null and void and orders which are irregular,

wrong or illegal. Where an authority making order lacks

inherent jurisdiction, such order would be without jurisdiction,

// 3 //

Page 3 of 5

null, non est and void ab initio as defect of jurisdiction of an

authority goes to the root of the matter and strikes at its very

authority to pass any order and such a defect cannot be cured

even by consent of the parties. (See: Kiran Singh & Ors. Vs.

Chaman Paswan & Ors.). However, exercise of jurisdiction in a

wrongful manner cannot result in a nullity - it is an

illegality, capable of being cured in a duly constituted legal

proceedings.

3.

Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite

party no.3 and submits, affairs of the Association were/are in turmoil.

Some of the members/affected parties had moved this Court by said

writ petition W.P.(C) 15580 of 2020. The Co-ordinate Bench, without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposed of the writ

petition directing the Collector to take a decision on the

representations filed by petitioners therein, and pass appropriate or