Orissa High Court : Intra-Court Appeals Are Not Maintainable Against Orders Under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act
Safiya Malik
The Orissa High Court has adjudicated that an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against a judgment or order passed by a learned Single Judge in an appeal under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. A Full Bench comprising Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Justice Savitri Ratho, and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that an intra-court appeal in such cases is barred and should not be entertained. The decision also disapproved the view taken by a Division Bench in an earlier case that had permitted such an appeal, stating that it did not lay down a correct legal position.
The matter arose from an intra-court appeal filed against a judgment dated May 9, 2024, passed by a learned Single Judge in an appeal under Section 24-C of the Act. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, relying on a Full Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in Mahammed Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz, which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court. The respondents submitted that after the introduction of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against a judgment or order passed by a learned Single Judge in an appeal arising from proceedings under a Special Act.
The appellant relied on a Division Bench decision in Prasanna Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha, which had entertained an intra-court appeal in a similar matter. The appellant submitted that the decision in Prasanna Kumar Sahu should be followed, as it was based on prior decisions of the court that recognized the maintainability of intra-court appeals in such cases. The appellant also cited another case, Arabinda Panda v. The Director, Higher Education, Odisha, where the court had entertained a writ appeal. The appellant contended that the case involved substantial questions of law regarding appellate jurisdiction under a Special Act and that the appeal should be decided on its merits.
The court examined the decisions in Mahammed Saud and Mohd. Saud v. Dr. (Maj.) Shaikh Mahfooz, where it was recorded that "after the introduction of Section 100-A with effect from 1.7.2002, no Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment or order passed by a learned Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act." The Full Bench observed that "the decision of a Division Bench in Prasanna Kumar Sahu does not lay down the correct law on the question of maintainability of an intra-court appeal against an order passed under Section 24-C of the Act, in view of the Full Bench decision in Mahammed Saud." The court also stated that the Division Bench in Prasanna Kumar Sahu did not adequately consider the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the non-maintainability of intra-court appeals against orders arising from special enactments.
The judgment further examined the scope of Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, which provides for an appeal to the High Court against an order or decision of the Tribunal. It was observed that "an order passed by the Tribunal under the Act has the trappings of a decree under the CPC and is enforceable in the same manner." The court recorded that, in light of these provisions, "an intra-court appeal against an appellate order under Section 24-C is not maintainable." The court also noted that the opinion formed by the Division Bench in Prasanna Kumar Sahu did not take into account the binding nature of the Full Bench decision in Mahammed Saud, which had been subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court.
In determining the correct legal position, the court referred to Supreme Court decisions in Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish and Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik, where it was stated that if a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction disagrees with another Bench on a question of law, the appropriate course is to refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than create conflicting judgments. The court recorded that "the law laid down in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or equal strength." The court further observed that "judicial discipline demands that when the decision of a coordinate Bench is brought to the notice of the Bench, it must be respected and followed."
The Full Bench answered the questions referred to it, stating that "an intra-court appeal shall not lie against a judgment or order passed by a learned Single Judge in an appeal under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969." It also recorded that "the view taken by the Division Bench in Prasanna Kumar Sahu is not legally correct on the point of maintainability of an intra-court appeal." The court held that "an intra-court appeal shall not lie against an order passed by a learned Single Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction under a Special Act."
The appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General; D. Tripathy, Additional Government Advocate.
Case Title: Laba Kumar Rath v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number: W.A. No. 2047 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Justice Savitri Ratho, Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra
[Read/Download order]
