Orders passed by judges hearing cases outside assigned roster are illegal: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court recently held that when a judge passes orders on case that was not assigned to them as per the court’s roster, such an exercise amounts to acting without legal authority, rendering the resulting order invalid.

A Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman made the observation while allowing an intra-court appeal setting aside a January 9, 2026 order passed by a single judge.

A key aspect of the Division Bench's March 10 order was the importance of the roster system, under which the Chief Justice allocates specific categories of cases to different judges.

The Court held that judges can only hear matters assigned to them. If they decide cases outside their designated category, the decision is treated as having been passed without jurisdiction.

"It is well settled that the Chief Justice is the master of the Roster. It segregates the category of cases to be dealt by each of the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court which ipso facto leads to an inescapable inference that 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 stemmed from a contract between a company and the State of Odisha, which had been resolved through arbitration. An arbitral award was passed in favour of the company and since the State had not successfully challenged that decision, the award became legally binding and enforceable. When the State failed to comply, the company initiated execution proceedings before a commercial court.

The Court noted that despite repeated opportunities, the State delayed payment and sought adjournments. Eventually, the commercial court ordered coercive steps, including civil imprisonment, to secure compliance with the decree.

The State then approached the High Court under Article 226 (allows High Courts to issue writs against government action) and Article 227 (gives High Courts supervisory powers over lower courts) of the Constitution.

A single judge allowed the petition and set aside the commercial court’s order, observing that the State had not been given proper notice before the direction for civil imprisonment was issued.

This order was challenged before the Division Bench.

The Division Bench, after examining whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be used to challenge a judicial order of a civil or commercial court, held that it could not.

It clarified that such orders are not open to challenge under Article 226 and can instead be scrutinised under Article 227, which empowers High Courts to supervise lower courts and ensure they act within their legal bounds.

“Judicial orders of the civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,” the Bench noted, relying on settled Supreme Court law.

Ultimately, the Division Bench found that the petition before the single judge, though labelled under both Articles 226 and 227, had been treated as a writ under Article 226, which was not maintainable in law. Accordingly, the Court set aside the single judge’s order and restored the proceedings.

It further directed that the petition be reclassified as one under Article 227 and placed before the appropriate bench as per the roster for fresh consideration.

Advocate Sidhant Dwibedi appeared for the appellant company.

Additional Government Advocate Debashis Tripathy represented the State.

[Read Order]