Dismissed¶29

State of Orissa v. Puntamani Soren

Orissa HC17 Dec 2025RVWPET/228/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RVWPET 228/2018; State of Odisha review petition; recall of order dated 25.04.2018 disposing FAO 695/2015; maintainability of review; functus officio; 179 days delay; Section 24 (C) Orissa Education Act 1969; Sri Sugyan Choudhury v. State of Odisha, RVWPET 234/2012 (25.08.2025); Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. V. Grapco Industries Ltd. (1999) 4 SCC 710; Allahabad Bank, Calcutta v. Radha Krishna Maity (1999) 6 SCC 755; Standard Chartered Bank v. India Glycols Ltd. (2014) SCC Online Delhi 3859; Quinn v. Leathem; DRT Act; pari materia; dismissed with costs made easy; I.A. 259/2018; Dixit Krishna Shripad J.; 17.12.2025; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.

What did the court decide?

The Review Petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy; I.A. No.259 of 2018 pales into insignificance.

State of Orissa Vs Puntamani Soren — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the Review Petition seeking recall of the order dated 25.04.2018 disposing of FAO No.695 of 2015 is maintainable. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The Review Petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy; I.A. No.259 of 2018 pales into insignificance.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Proceeding on Para 4.1(a) of its cognate judgment in RVWPET No.234 of 2012, the Court treated courts, tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities as ordinarily lacking power to review their own decisions unless the statute clothes them with such power, subject to very few exceptions like fraud/fabrication and gross violation of principles of natural justice, adjudicatory bodies becoming functus officio once the cause brought before them is resolved finally.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review dismissed as not maintainable — High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, RVWPET No.228 of 2018 with I.A. No.259 of 2018 (Dixit Krishna Shripad J., order dated 17.12.2025). The State of Odisha sought recall of the order dated 25.04.2018 disposing of FAO No.695 of 2015, contending that a delay of 179 days in preferring the First Appeal under Section 24 (C) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 had not been duly adverted to by the Coordinate Bench. The Opposite Parties (Puntamani Soren & Others) opposed the review on maintainability, invoking the Court's judgment dated 25.08.2025 in RVWPET No.234 of 2012 (Sri Sugyan Choudhury v. State of Odisha & others). Agreeing with the opponents, the Court held the review petition not maintainable: courts, tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities ordinarily do not have power to review their decisions unless the statute clothes them with such power, save very few exceptions like fraud/fabrication and gross violation of natural justice, adjudicatory bodies becoming functus officio once the cause is finally resolved. Precedents pressed into service for review by tribunals — Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. V. Grapco Industries Ltd. (1999) 4 SCC 710; Allahabad Bank, Calcutta v. Radha Krishna Maity (1999) 6 SCC 755; Standard Chartered Bank v. India Glycols Ltd. (2014) SCC Online Delhi 3859 — were distinguished: the first two do not discuss review under the 1969 Act or a pari materia statute, and the third arises under the DRT Act, whose purpose and policy content is miles away from the 1969 Act, textual resemblance alone not attracting the pari materia rule; per Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem, a decision is an authority only for the proposition laid down. Review Petition dismissed, costs made easy; I.A. No.259 of 2018 pales into insignificance.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

RVWPET No.228 of 2018

¶3

State of Odisha & Others

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Puntamani Soren & Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. S. Routray, Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

Order No. 01.

17.12.2025

RVWPET No.228 of 2018 & I.A. No.259 of 2018

¶16

This review petition seeks recall of the order dated 25.04.2018, whereby FAO No.695 of 2015 was disposed off. Learned counsel for the review petitioner, AGA-Mr. Mohanty submits that there was delay of 179 days in preferring the First Appeal under Section 24 (C) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, which aspect has not been duly adverted to by the Coordinate Bench and therefore, the order in question is liable to be reviewed & recalled.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the OPs opposes the Review Petition on the ground of maintainability by pressing into service this Court’s judgment dated 25.08.2025 in RVWPET No.234 of 2012 between Sri Sugyan Choudhury v. State of Odisha & others , etc.

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court agrees with the submission of learned counsel appearing for the opponents in the Review Petition that said petition is not maintainable. This Court in the cognate judgment at Para-4.1 (a) & (e) has observed as under:

¶20

“ 4.1. As to maintainability of Review Petitions :

¶21

(a) It has long been settled from the days of Privy Council that Court, Tribunals & Quasi-judicial Authorities ordinarily do not have power to review their decisions unless the statute clothe them with such power. Rulings in this regard galore in Law Reports. However, this is subject to a very few exceptions like the cases of fraud/fabrication & gross violation of principles of natural justice. Here again, procedural constrains do obtain. The scope of review, where law vests such power, is ordinarily very restrictive qua the appeal. Of course, the extent of review power depends upon the purpose and policy content of the statute in question and then terminology of its provision that bestows such power. The grand rule is, the adjudicatory bodies become functus officio once the cause brought before them is resolved finally, subject to all just exceptions. Existence per se is no ground for exercise. There are frugal case laws wherein the review is undertaken in the exercise of inherent power, if such power is granted or recognized by the statute. Added, the existence of review power is one thing and its exercise is another. All this is a prelude to the discussion infra.

¶22

(e) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Routray drew attention of the Court to the following rulings in support of his contention that review is admissible at the hands of Tribunal and therefore, the appeal proceedings being continuation of the same, the

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

review power should avail to this Court as a corollary of that. In support of said proposition he pressed into service the following decisions:

¶25

(i) Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. V. Grapco Industries Ltd. ., Reported in (1999) 4 SCC 710:

¶26

(ii) Allahabad Bank, Calcutta v. Radha Krishna Maity , reported in (1999) 6 SCC 755:

¶27

(iii) Standard Chartered Bank v. India Glycols Ltd. , Reported in (2014) SCC Online Delhi 3859.

¶28

The first two rulings do not discuss the power of review under the provisions of 1969 Act or a pari materia statute. It hardly needs to be stated that a decision is an authority for the proposition laid down in a given fact matrix, and not for all that which logically follows from what has been so laid down vide Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem ,¹ . The third decision arose under the provisions of law relating to debt recovery, that is, popularly known as DRT Act. The purpose & policy content of this Act and of the 1969 Act are miles away from each other. Merely because certain provisions relating to dispute resolution machinery have textual resemblance, that per se would not make the Rule of pari materia readily applicable.”

¶29

In the above circumstances, Review Petition is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy. I.A. No.259 of 2018 pales into insignificance.

¶30

Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶31

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

¶32

Page 3 of 2

¶33

Madhusmita

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 18:10:59

¶36

Page 4 of 2

State of Orissa v. Puntamani Soren

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Orissa v. Puntamani Soren

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amitav Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Satya Narayan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Gunum Pattanayak Vs State of Odisha

Tripura Mishra Vs State of Orissa

Rajesh Kansa Behera Vs Pharmacy Council of India, Nbcc Centre, New Delhi

Prativa Sahoo Vs State of Odisha