Orissa High Court held that orders passed by a Bench in matters outside the roster assigned by the Chief Justice are per se illegal. The Court said entertaining cases beyond allocation amounts to jurisdiction without authority, rendering such decisions fundamentally invalid.
The Orissa High Court held that any order made by a Bench in matters outside the roster assigned by the Chief Justice is per se illegal.
The Court explained that once the Chief Justice designates categories of cases to particular judges, no Bench may assume jurisdiction over matters beyond its assigned categories; any order made in such circumstances amounts to an exercise of jurisdiction without authority.
The matter arose on an intra-court appeal from a Single Judge’s order in a writ petition challenging orders of the Commercial Court in execution proceedings arising from an arbitral award.
The principal question for the Court was whether a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a judicial order of a civil court.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman reviewed the legal position and observed,
“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”.
The dispute originated from a contract that was referred to arbitration and resulted in an arbitral award against the State. As the award was either unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged, it became executable as a decree.
The decree-holder initiated execution proceedings before the Commercial Court. Despite service and counsel appearance, the judgment-debtor repeatedly sought adjournments and did not comply with the decree, prompting the executing court to issue directions including a show-cause notice for possible civil detention.
The judgment-debtor then filed a writ under Articles 226 and 227 before the High Court, which a Single Bench allowed by setting aside the coercive measures ordered in execution.
The Division Bench considered whether a writ under Article 226 could lie against judicial orders of civil courts. Noting the trajectory of Supreme Court authority, the Court recalled that while earlier decisions (such as Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai) recognised the High Court’s supervisory/certiorari power to correct jurisdictional errors by subordinate courts, a later ruling in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath clarified the position, judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Consequently, the High Court cannot issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 to challenge judicial decisions in civil proceedings. The Court added that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, however, remains available to ensure subordinate courts and tribunals act within their legal bounds.
While addressing jurisdictional competence, the Court emphasized the roster system’s importance. It reiterated that the Chief Justice allocates categories of cases among benches, and that a judge entertaining matters outside his assigned roster is effectively exercising jurisdiction without authority; hence, any order so passed is legally unsustainable.
Therefore, a Bench acting without roster assignment renders its orders per se illegal.
Applying these principles, the Division Bench held that the Single Bench should not have entertained the writ under Article 226 to challenge the Commercial Court’s judicial order. The Single Bench’s order was set aside.
The High Court directed that the petition be treated as one under Article 227 and placed before the appropriate Bench having roster jurisdiction for fresh consideration.
Case Title: M/s NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Engineer (Roads-1), Bhubaneswar