ORDERS PASSED BY BENCH IN MATTERS OUTSIDE ITS ASSIGNED ROSTER ARE PER SE ILLEGAL: ORISSA HIGH COURT:

The Orissa High Court has ruled that any order passed by a bench in a matter not assigned to it under the roster fixed by the Chief Justice is per se illegal and without authority. The court emphasized that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and alone has the power to allocate categories of cases among the judges of the High Court. Once such allocation is made, no judge or bench can entertain or decide cases falling outside the assigned category.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman made this observation while hearing an intra-court appeal arising from an order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition. The writ petition had challenged certain orders issued by a Commercial Court in execution proceedings relating to an arbitral award.

The background of the case involved a contract dispute that was referred to arbitration. The arbitral award went against the State and, after remaining unchallenged or having been unsuccessfully challenged, attained the status of a executable decree. The decree holder initiated execution proceedings before the Commercial Court. Despite being served with notice and appearing through counsel, the judgment debtor repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to satisfy the decree. The executing court therefore issued coercive directions, including a show-cause notice regarding possible detention in civil prison for non-compliance.

Aggrieved by these orders, the judgment debtor approached the High Court by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. A Single Judge allowed the petition and set aside the coercive orders passed in the execution proceedings. This order was then challenged in the intra-court appeal.

The Division Bench examined two key issues. First, it addressed the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 against a judicial order passed by a civil court. Relying on the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, the High Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. While supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 remains available to ensure that subordinate courts act within the bounds of their authority, a writ of certiorari under Article 226 cannot be issued to correct errors in such judicial orders.

Second, and more significantly, the bench examined whether the Single Judge had the jurisdiction to entertain the matter at all. The court reiterated that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. This system segregates categories of cases to be handled by each judge. Once the Chief Justice assigns jurisdiction over specific categories of cases, any judge who entertains a matter outside that assigned roster effectively usurps power and exercises jurisdiction without authority. Consequently, any order passed by a bench in a matter not assigned to it under the roster is per se illegal.

Applying these principles, the Division Bench held that the writ petition challenging the judicial order of the Commercial Court could not have been entertained under Article 226. It accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the Single Judge. The court directed that the writ petition be treated as one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and placed before the appropriate bench having roster jurisdiction over such matters for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

This judgment underscores the importance of the roster system for the orderly functioning of the High Court and reaffirms established limits on the scope of writ jurisdiction against orders of civil courts.