Wrong bench, wrong call: Orissa High Court says judicial order without proper roster assignment ‘illegal’
Orissa High Court rules roster violation makes orders illegal, clarifies Article 226 not maintainable against civil court orders, directs use of Article 227 remedy.
By declaring roster violations as jurisdictional errors, the Orissa High Court has strengthened internal judicial propriety and drawn a sharp line between Articles 226 and 227. (Image generated using AI)
Orissa High Court news: Clarifying both the scope of writ jurisdiction and the authority of the Chief Justice over case allocation, the Orissa High Court has held that any judicial order passed by a bench lacking proper roster assignment is “per se illegal,” while also reiterating that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable against judicial orders of civil courts.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman delivered the judgment on March 10, setting aside a single judge’s order dated January 9.
Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman set aside the single judge’s order.
“Once the power under jurisdiction exercised by each of the Judges is assigned by the Chief Justice, usurpation of power de hors such category of cases would relate to an exercise of the jurisdiction without any authority, and, therefore, any order is passed by a Bench having not assigned the Roster/determination is per se illegal,” the high court said.
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.
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.
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.
Story continues below this ad
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.
Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.
Expertise
Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:
Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.
Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.
Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.
Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More
Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman set aside the single judge’s order.