No One Can Be Condemned Unheard: Orissa High Court Quashes Dismissal Order Passed Without Hearing the Petitioner in OSS Case

“Substantial Justice Must Prevail Over Technicalities” – In a strong reaffirmation of the foundational principles of natural justice, the Orissa High Court set aside an order dismissing a revision case without hearing the petitioner. Justice Ananda Chandra Behera, presiding in writ jurisdiction in WP(C) No. 27466 of 2025 (Bharati Mohanty vs. State of Odisha & Another), ruled that the dismissal of OSS Case No. 630 of 2022 without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing was violative of constitutional and procedural fairness.

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 21.06.2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Revision Court-IV, Bhubaneswar, and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, observing that "a matter should ordinarily be decided on merits after giving both parties a fair opportunity of hearing".

Natural Justice is Non-Negotiable: Dismissal Without Notice Cannot Be Sustained

The petitioner, Bharati Mohanty, approached the High Court alleging that her revision petition under the Odisha Survey and Settlement (OSS) framework—Case No. 630 of 2022—had been dismissed without any prior notice or opportunity to be heard.

The Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the impugned order was passed in the absence of the petitioner. It held:

“It is the settled proposition of law that it is the duty of a good Judge to take its best endeavour for the final disposal of a case on merit after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties... the Court should not allow to grow a suit out of a suit, which concerns the welfare of the State.”

The Court added that failure to follow such basic procedural safeguards renders the adjudicatory process unsustainable.

Substantial Justice Trumps Technicalities

Justice Behera also emphasized that the justice delivery system must focus on resolving real disputes rather than being ensnared in procedural formalities, especially when one party is denied participation in the proceeding:

“It is very fundamental in law that, when the law of technicalities and the courses of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the courses of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.”

The Court found that the petitioner was “eagerly interested” in prosecuting her revision and had been denied the opportunity due to lack of notice. The High Court determined that remitting the matter for fresh hearing would cause prejudice to none, but ensure fairness to all.

Time-Bound Remand with Directions for Compliance

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court issued the following directions:

“The impugned order dated 21.06.2024 passed in OSS Case No.630/2022 by the Addl. Commissioner, Additional Revision Court-IV, Bhubaneswar is quashed/set aside.”

“The matter is remitted back to the Addl. Commissioner... to decide the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties.”

Importantly, the Court directed a time-bound disposal:

“The Addl. Commissioner shall dispose of the OSS Case No.630/2022 as per law within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.”

The petitioner has been directed to appear on 12.01.2026 before the Revisional Authority and to file a certified copy of the High Court judgment for further proceedings.

This decision serves as a pointed reminder that access to justice must be real, not illusory. A dismissal order passed in the absence of a party—especially without issuing notice—strikes at the very foundation of fair adjudication. The Orissa High Court’s decision ensures that technical lapses cannot override constitutional guarantees of due process under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

In matters of justice, the Court made it abundantly clear: “No one should be condemned unheard.”

Date of Decision: 05 January 2026