Allowed¶21

Chandrakanti Dash v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC22 Aug 2024WP(C)/4715/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Natural justice violation - appeal disposed of by ADM, Dhenkanal (AWW Appeal Case No. 38 of 2010, order dated 03.02.2011) without notice to petitioner Chandrakanti Dash and without impleading her as respondent; writ application allowed, impugned order quashed, appeal remanded for fresh disposal with proper opportunity of hearing, preferably within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 03.02.2011 quashed; appeal remitted to the ADM, Dhenkanal to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.6 (Arati Jena) afresh after granting proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other necessary parties, preferably within two months from the date of this order. ¶21

Chandrakanti Dash Vs State and Ors. — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 03.02.2011 of the ADM, Dhenkanal disposing of AWW Appeal Case No. 38 of 2010 without issuing notice to the petitioner, who was also not impleaded as a respondent, is bad in law, violates the principles of natural justice and warrants interference.

¶17

Court's answer

On reading of the impugned order, the petitioner does not appear to have been impleaded as a respondent in the appeal.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

No notice on the appeal was issued to the petitioner.

¶17

Key takeaways

Owing to those omissions, the impugned order becomes bad in law and warrants interference.ratio¶17
Although the impugned order was passed more than 13 years ago, the blatant violation of the principles of natural justice means it cannot be allowed to sustain.ratio¶20
If the appeal is heard again with proper opportunity of hearing granted to all necessary parties, the re-hearing shall not cause prejudice to any of them.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No. 4715 of 2011 (Sashikanta Mishra J., 22.08.2024): The petitioner Chandrakanti Dash challenged the order dated 03.02.2011 of the ADM, Dhenkanal disposing of AWW Appeal Case No. 38 of 2010. The Court found that the petitioner was neither impleaded as a respondent in the appeal nor served any notice on it, so the impugned order became bad in law. Although passed more than 13 years earlier, the blatant violation of the principles of natural justice meant the order could not be allowed to sustain, especially as a fresh hearing would prejudice none of the parties. The writ application was accordingly allowed: the order dated 03.02.2011 was quashed and the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.6 (Arati Jena) was remitted to the ADM, Dhenkanal for afresh disposal after granting proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other necessary parties, preferably within two months.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 4715 of 2011

¶3

Chandrakanti Dash

¶4

.… Petitioner

¶5

Represented by Mr. J.K.Mohanty, Adv.

¶6

Versus -

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors

¶8

.… Opp. Parties Represented by Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, AGA

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

22.08.2024

Order No.

09.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶17

The order dated 03.02.2011 passed by the ADM, Dhenkanal in AWW Appeal Case No. 38 of 2010 is impugned in the present writ application. It is, inter alia, submitted that the appeal was disposed of without issuing notice to the petitioner. Reading of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner also does not appear to have been impleaded as a respondent. Further, no notice on the appeal appears to have been issued to the petitioner. As such, the impugned order becomes bad in law and warrants interference. Though, this Court is conscious of the fact that the impugned order

¶18

was passed more than 13 years ago yet, there being blatant

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

violation of the principles of natural justice, the same cannot be allowed to sustain. Moreover, if the appeal is heard again with proper opportunity of hearing being granted to all necessary parties, the same shall not cause prejudice to any of them.

¶21

In such view of the matter, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.02.2011 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the ADM, Dhenkanal to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the Opposite Party No.6 (Arati Jena) afresh after granting proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other necessary parties, if any. Since the dispute is of the year 2010, the ADM shall do well to dispose of the appeal as early as possible preferably, within two months from today.

¶22

Deepak

¶23

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 23-Aug-2024 19:32:41

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Chandrakanti Dash v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakanti Dash v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonali Samantray @ Liza Vs Subhamaya Swain

Jinarani Nayak @ Leeta Nayak Vs Prasanta Kumar Barik

Sudarsana Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Balkishor Lakhua Vs State of Odisha

Madhusudan Dalabehera Vs State of Odisha

Ranjit Karada @ Karad @ Kadraka Vs State of Odisha