The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Odisha Administrative Tribunal order permitting impleadment. The Court held that no gross injustice or manifest error occurred, declining to intervene under Article 226/227.
Petition dismissed being devoid of merit; Tribunal order upholding impleadment stands.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.15148 of 2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.4 to 6 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party nos1 and 2.
In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for brevity) in M.P. No.266(C) of 2017, arising out of O.A. No.1535(C) of 2014, whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the application filed by the opposite party nos.4 to 6 to implead them as respondents/ opposite parties and to afford them reasonable opportunities of hearing.
It is well settled principle of law that the power to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution and the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any proceeding. Moreover, writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless it is satisfied that ( i ) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such
2
as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and ( ii ) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that allowing the opposite party nos.4 to 6 to be the respondents to the O.A., no gross injustice will occasion and there is also no error manifest and apparent error on the face of the proceeding. At the worst, only party will be heard before passing of the judgment. That will not create any hindrance for rendering proper justice in favour of the petitioners.
Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
………………………. S. K. Mishra, J.
….………………….
D. Dash, J.
BJ
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order allowing impleadment under certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Opposite Party nos. 4 to 6
Opposite Party nos. 1 and 2
S. K. Mishra
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
