Orders Passed By Bench In Matters Outside Roster Assigned By Chief Justice Are Per Se Illegal: Orissa High Court

The Court observed that once the Chief Justice allocates categories of cases to individual Judges, a Bench cannot assume jurisdiction over matters falling outside such assignment, and any order passed in such circumstances would amount to an exercise of jurisdiction without authority.

The Court was hearing an intra-court appeal arising out of an order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition challenging orders of the Commercial Court in execution proceedings relating to an arbitral award. The appeal required the Court to examine whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable against a judicial order passed by a civil court.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman examined the legal position and held: “the Chief Justice is the master of the Roster. It segregates the category of cases to be dealt with by each of the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court, which ipso facto leads to an inescapable inference that the category of cases which are not assigned to a particular Judge cannot be taken up by the said Judge. 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”.

Background

The dispute arose from a contract between the parties, which was referred to arbitration. The arbitral proceedings culminated in an award against the State. Since the award remained unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged, it became executable as a decree of a civil court.

The decree holder then initiated execution proceedings before the Commercial Court. The Court noted that despite service of notice and appearance through counsel, the judgment debtor repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to satisfy the decree. Consequently, the executing court issued directions, including a show-cause notice as to why the judgment debtor should not be detained in civil prison for failure to comply with the decree.

The judgment debtor thereafter approached the High Court by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the Commercial Court. A Single Bench allowed the writ petition and set aside the coercive orders passed in execution proceedings.

Court’s Analysis

The Division Bench examined whether such a writ petition was maintainable. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, the Court noted that earlier jurisprudence had recognised that supervisory or certiorari jurisdiction could be exercised by the High Court to correct jurisdictional errors of subordinate courts.

However, the Court pointed out that the position was later clarified by the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, where it was categorically held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The High Court observed that in view of this authoritative pronouncement, a writ of certiorari under Article 226 cannot be issued to challenge judicial orders passed in civil proceedings. Nevertheless, the Court clarified that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 remains available to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority.

While addressing the jurisdictional issue, the Court emphasised the significance of the roster system in the functioning of the High Court. It reiterated that the Chief Justice determines the allocation of categories of cases among different benches.

The Court observed that once the Chief Justice assigns particular categories of cases to specific benches, any judge who entertains matters outside that assigned roster effectively exercises jurisdiction without authority. In such circumstances, the order passed would be legally unsustainable.

Accordingly, the Bench held that an order passed by a Bench without having the assigned roster or determination is per se illegal.

Conclusion

Applying these principles, the Court held that the writ petition challenging the judicial order of the Commercial Court could not have been entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. The impugned order of the Single Bench was therefore set aside.

The Division Bench directed that the writ petition be treated as one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and be placed before the appropriate bench having roster jurisdiction to deal with such matters for fresh consideration.

Cause Title: M/s NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Engineer (Roads-1), Bhubaneswar

Appearances

Appellant: Sidhant Dwibedi, Advocate

Respondent: Debashis Tripathy, Additional Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment