This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging an order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal that maintained status quo. The Court held that no gross injustice or manifest error existed to warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
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.16952 of 2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.4 to 24 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party nos1 and 2.
In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for brevity) in M.P. No.666(C) of 2014, arising out of O.A. No.1535(C) of 2014, whereby the learned Tribunal ordered for maintenance of status quo.
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 suit. 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 as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the
2
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 in granting an order of status quo, no gross injustice will occasion and there is also no error manifest and apparent error on the face of the proceeding. Granting of such interim order 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 writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 warrants interference with the Tribunal's order maintaining status quo in pending OA.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Opposite parties
S. K. Mishra
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
