Wrong bench, wrong call: Orissa High Court says judicial order without proper roster assignment ‘illegal’

Master of roster: Chief Justice

• It is well settled that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster.
• It segregates the category of cases to be dealt with by each judge of the high court, which ipso facto (by that very fact) leads to an inescapable inference that the category of cases which are not assigned to a particular judge cannot be taken up by that judge.
• We do not find any infirmity in exercise of the jurisdiction as a plea was not taken by the appellant.
• Nor do we find any reference to it in the impugned order, once such a plea is taken in the instant appeal as a plea of jurisdiction, which strikes at the root of the exercise of power, we permit it to be considered and decided in this writ appeal.

Final directions

• Allowing the appeal, the court set aside the single judge’s order.
• Held that the writ petition under Article 226 (high court’s powers to issue writs) was not maintainable.
• The court directed that the matter be re-registered under Article 227 (high court’s power of superintendence over all courts).
• It ordered listing before the appropriate bench as per the roster.
• Emphasised expeditious disposal.

Arbitration award, execution dispute

• The case arose from a contractual dispute between a private organisation M/s NKC Projects Private Limited and the chief engineer (roads), Bhubaneswar.
• The dispute was referred for arbitration, culminating in an award in favour of the contractor.
• With the award remaining unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged, it attained the status of a civil court decree and was put into execution before the commercial court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
• However, the state authorities, as judgment debtor, repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to comply with the decree.
• The executing court, noting a “lackadaisical attitude,” eventually ordered coercive steps, including civil imprisonment.

Single judge’s intervention quashed

• The state challenged the execution proceedings before a single judge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
• The single bench set aside the commercial court’s coercive orders, citing a lack of proper notice and granting time to deposit the award amount.
• This order was then challenged in the present intra-court appeal.

Key legal issue: Maintainability of writ under Article 226

• The bench framed a crucial question: Can a judicial order passed by a civil court be challenged under Article 226?
• Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Radhey Shyam vs Chhabi Nath (2015), the bench held, “Judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.”
• The court clarified that while earlier precedent in Surya Dev Rai (2003) had allowed limited interference, it stands overruled to that extent.

Article 227 still available

• Importantly, the court distinguished Article 227 from Article 226, holding that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 remains available.
• High courts can intervene to keep subordinate courts within legal bounds.
• Such power is not curtailed by the ruling in Radhey Shyam.
• Thus, while Article 226 is barred in such cases, litigants can still seek remedies under Article 227.

Significance of ruling

The judgment carries broader implications:

1. Reinforces judicial discipline

By declaring roster violations as jurisdictional errors, the Court has strengthened internal judicial propriety.

2. Clarifies constitutional remedies

It draws a sharp line between Articles 226 and 227, guiding litigants on the correct forum.

3. Limits writ interference in civil proceedings

The ruling discourages routine challenges to civil court orders under Article 226, preserving procedural hierarchy.

Conclusion

• The Orissa High Court’s decision serves as a reminder that jurisdiction is not merely about power, but about the lawful exercise of that power within assigned boundaries.
• By linking roster discipline with the legality of judicial orders, the court has elevated administrative allocation to a cornerstone of judicial validity.