Orissa High Court Sets Aside Order Pronounced ‘15 Months’ After Hearing Concluded; Says Authority May Forget Parties' Submissions After So Long

While deprecating unreasonable delay in pronouncing verdict, a Single Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath said,

“…if such mode is accepted, then disposal of such matters providing opportunity of hearing may not be a requirement and it may be opened to the adjudicatory authority to decide the matter accordingly on the basis of pleadings and objection, if any, of the respective parties, which is never the intention in setting up the Quasi-Judicial authority.”

Background

The writ petition was filed challenging an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (S.D.), Berhampur in exercise of power under the provisions of Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 whereby it rejected an application for revision.

Though hearing of the matter was concluded on 23.03.2019, the judgment in such revision was pronounced only on 17.06.2020 i.e. almost after one year and three months. Thus, the petitioner approached the High Court impugning such unreasonably delayed delivery of judgment.

Contentions

The petitioner argued that the judgment ought to have been passed within a reasonable period of time. It relied on Order 20 Rule 1 of CPC to contend that in no case delivery of judgment shall exceed beyond sixty days from the date on which hearing of the case was concluded. The ruling of the Apex Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar was relied upon wherein the Court had deplored the delay in pronouncement of judgment.

In the present case, as there is an admitted delay of one year and three months in the pronouncement of judgment, the petitioner urged for interference of the Court to remand the matter back for fresh hearing and pronouncement of judgment within a stipulated time.

Court’s Observations

After hearing the arguments, the Court was of the view that the judgment should have been delivered within sixty days from the date of conclusion of hearing. Further it highlighted that the adjudicatory authority did not disclose any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance which compelled it to deliver the judgment with such huge delay.

“For the opinion of this Court, in the event there is approval of such delayed disposal, then the purpose of hearing of the matters involved gets frustrated as the adjudicatory authority is unable to remember the submission of the respective parties after so much loss of time”, it added.

The Court also referred to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in R.C. Sharma v. Union of India:

“Nevertheless, an unreasonable delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of judgment, unless explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, is highly undesirable even when written arguments are submitted. It is not unlikely that some points which the litigant considers important may have escaped notice. But what is more important is that litigants must have complete confidence in the results of litigation. This confidence tends to be shaken if there is excessive delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of judgments.”

Justice Rath also pointed out that an Arrears Committee was constituted by the Government of India on the basis of recommendations made at the Chief Justices’ Conference held in 1989-90. In Chapter VIII therein, the Committee had recommended that reserved judgment should ordinarily be pronounced within six weeks from the date of conclusion of argument.

It had also suggested that in case if a reserved judgment is not pronounced for a period of three months from the date of conclusion of arguments, the Chief Justice will have the authority either to post the case for delivery of judgment in open Court or withdrawal of the case and post it for disposal before an appropriate Bench.

While reproducing and reiterating the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Anil Rai, the Court held that there has been an unnecessary and unexplained delay in delivery of judgment herein. Therefore, it deemed proper to set aside the impugned judgment, with a direction to the authority to hear the arguments afresh and deliver a fresh judgment within a reasonable period of time.

The Court also directed the Secretary, Law Department, Government of Odisha for communication of the order to all quasi-judicial authorities working in the State. It also directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court to communicate the order to all the Civil Courts functioning in the State through their respective District and Sessions Judges.

Case Title: Laxmi Sahu v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 17358 of 2022

Date of Judgment: February 27, 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Dash, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S. Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 33