Single-judge of Orissa High Court criticizes division bench for nullifying his verdict by 3-line order

Terming it “absolutely unreasoned and unwarranted”, a single-judge of the Orissa High Court has taken a strong exception to a decision passed by a division bench that sat in appeal over one of his earlier judgments concerning the renewal of a passport..In an August 10 order, Justice Biswanath Rath opined that the division bench judgment, rendered by then Chief Justice S Muralidhar (now retired) and Justice G Satapathy, appeared to be an “abuse of process of law.”Justice Rath noted that the effect of his earlier judgment was nullified by the division bench "in just three lines", adding that he has never come across such an act in his years as a lawyer or a judge.“This Court in its entire practice period of 28 years and judgeship of 9 years has never come across in taking out the effect of such judgments in just three lines order by a higher Bench. There may not be any misunderstanding that the Division Bench has no jurisdiction, however, the Division Bench in such matter is required to apply its mind and give reason in taking out effect of such judgments otherwise such judgments will not be applicable in the legal parlance,” Justice Rath said.Justice Rath further highlighted that his earlier judgment had taken care of many Supreme Court judgments on legal issues. On the other hand, the division bench “appears to have completely ignored all such judgments, which have been passed by the Hon’ble apex Court even,” the single-judge said.Justice Rath further said that “it is strange to observe” that perhaps the division bench felt that they had "absolute appellate authority over single bench judgment."“Yes, there is no doubt, Writ Appeals lie in certain cases but only in letters patent otherwise there is no difference so far as functioning of the Single Bench and the Division Bench is concerned. In the event, Writ Appeals are taken up as a matter of routine then there is no confidence and sanctity in the Single Bench functioning,” the single judge added..The controversy can be traced to an order passed in March 2022 by Justice Biswanath Rath in Asutosh Amrit Patnaik vs State Of Orissa & Ors. In that case, the single-judge had directed the passport authority to renew the travel document of a man involved in two criminal cases."There is in fact no restriction in the renewal of the passport or even grant of passport in the pendency of the criminal proceeding involving the party concerned which may be a time based renewal or grant,” Justice Rath held.The person was later issued a passport.An appeal was filed in the matter by the Union of India, which was heard by a division bench of Chief Justice Muralidhar (now retired) and Justice G Satapathy. The Central government submitted that several other petitions have been filed for similar reliefs and expressed concern that the March 2022 judgment was being cited as a precedent.Pertinently, on April 13, this year, the division bench ruled that the single judge's decision “will not constitute precedent and will be treated as having been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.""The questions of law arising from the said impugned judgment are left open for decision in some other appropriate case," the division bench added. .This development was taken note of by Justice Rath earlier this month when he was dealing with a different case involving a plea for passport renewal by a woman, Madhusmita Samant, who was accused in two criminal cases. On June 14, the passport authority rejected her application for the renewal of her passport. The counsel representing the woman submitted that she is already on bail in the two cases. In one of the cases against her, the High Court had also stayed further proceedings, Justice Rath was informed. .The judge found the order granting her bail in one of the cases against her did not impose any condition restricting her right to travel abroad. Pertinently, Justice Rath noted that the passport authority relied on the division bench order of April 13 to reject her renewal application. .The judge added that this division bench decision “unfortunately” did not give any reasoning as to why that case should not be treated as a precedent. Justice Rath ultimately granted the woman relief, adding that the judgments passed by the Supreme Court on the issue of renewal of passports of persons involved in criminal cases apply to her case.The Court further ordered the authorities to complete the process of renewing her passport within seven days. .[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.