Orissa High Court Flags 'Ego' Of State Functionaries In Not Executing Consent Decree Passed By Supreme Court In 1992, Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost

“Delayed justice is egregious form of human rights violation,” the Orissa High Court recently remarked while imposing an exemplary cost of rupees two lakh on the State for its apathy in not executing a clear order passed by the highest Court of the land more than three decades back.Drawing curtains to almost five-decade-old “relentlessly fought legal battle”, the Single Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad observed –“In the case at hand, nearly five decades having lapsed in the court corridors, not even a fig leaf has fallen into the pocket of Decree Holders. Delayed justice is egregious form of human rights violation. At least, as a concession to shortness of human life, litigation longevity needs to be shortened, by devising new techniques. It is high time that the stakeholders converge their ideas to achieve it.”Factual matrixUdayanath Sahoo and R.S. Bhatia (the present decree-holders), were the licensed forest contractors. Bhatia had taken forest lease in 1975-76 after being declared the highest bidder in a public auction held by Divisional Forest Officer, Karanjia Division. Upon committing default, the contract was terminated and thereafter in a subsequent public auction, the same was awarded to Sahoo.Bhatia challenged termination of his contract and its award to Sahoo before the High Court, which came to be allowed by order dated 26.04.1978. Being aggrieved, Sahoo filed a civil appeal before the Apex Court and the State also filed another appeal challenging the conclusion reached at by the High Court. Subsequently, a compromise was arrived at between Sahoo and Bhatia, considering which the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by a common order dated 27.03.1992, obligating the State to identify the uncut trees in order to work out the settlement arrived at between the parties.Despite of the clear order of the top Court along with multiple representations made by the decree-holders, the State showed lethargy in carrying out the order. Getting no alternative, the decree-holders filed contempt petitions against the State seeking compliance of the order dated 27.03.1992.Instead of ensuring compliance, the State moved interim applications in the disposed of civil appeals seeking modification of the said order contending that the felling of trees inside a sanctuary was impermissible under Section 29 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions as well as the IAs by an order dated 28.01.1994 observing, “Parties may work out their rights in the appropriate forum”.Therefore, the decree-holders filed execution petition before the Civil Judge, Karanjia which was rejected in 1997, giving rise to the present execution case before the High Court under Order XLV Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Maintainability and 'privity of contract'Negating the contention of the State, the Court held that the order made by the Apex Court on 27.03.1992 cannot be disputed to be a 'final order' within the meaning of Order XLV Rule 1, inasmuch as after that order, nothing remained pending. Rule 15 of the said order further made it clear that both the decrees and orders of the Apex Court are executable by the Court from which the appeal arose. Therefore, no question on maintainability of the execution case arises.The State further laid a challenge to the executability of the order, contending that the same came to be passed on the basis of a compromise arrived at between two private parties and thus, there is no privity of contract vis-à-vis the State. Justice Shripad, however, could not agree with such argument. Discarding claim of the State, he said –“Our Constitution, vide Article 144 obligates every civil authority to act in aid of the decisions of Apex Court, whether party eo nomine or not. This applies with more vigor here, inasmuch as civil authorities are none other than the Judgment Debtors, being parties to the proceedings who were in so many words directed to give effect to the settlement recorded in the order dated 27.03.1992, whereby subject Civil Appeals were disposed of.”Doctrine of 'frustration of contract' not applicableIt was further contention of the State that in view of nova causa interveniens i.e. the enactments of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the order/decree in question has become inexecutable. The Court nixed such submission by observing –“1980 Act was already there, as 1972 Act well was, when C.A. Nos.62 & 63 of 1979 were disposed of only on 27.03.1992. The former was ten-year old and the later 20 years, as on that date. Thus, it is not a new development that was not within the contemplation of court & parties, when the final order was made. Secondly, Judgment Debtors' I.A. No.2 & 3 of 1993 seeking modification of the settlement, as recorded in the order, which is already discussed, were negatived. Therefore, this contention is nothing but an afterthought intended to defeat the decree, if not...

Orissa High Court Flags 'Ego' Of State Functionaries In Not Executing Consent Decree Passed By Supreme Court In 1992, Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Orissa High Court Flags 'Ego' Of State Functionaries In Not Executing Consent Decree Passed By Supreme Court In 1992, Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers