'No One Should Suffer Because Of Court': Orissa High Court Judge Admits His 'Mistake Of Fact', Recalls Own Judgment In Review

The Orissa High Court has recalled its judgment dismissing a writ petition without hearing the petitioner on the question of delay and also leaving out a material aspect during the course of hearing.In a rare gesture, Justice Sashikanta Mishra candidly admitted to have fallen prey to a 'mistake of fact' while adjudicating the writ petition and thus, observed –“The doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit, that no one should suffer because of an act of the Court reinforces the power of review in such circumstances to ensure that procedural or factual errors committed by the Court do not result in injustice.”Laconically put, the petitioner underwent a surgery for ovarian cyst on 21.10.1998 and during the course of such surgery, she also underwent 'tubectomy' i.e. permanent female sterilization. As per a resolution dated 19.10.1983 of the Department of Health, Government of Odisha, the couples, who have only two children and opt to voluntary undergo permanent sterilization, shall be entitled to hold 'Green Card'. The Green Card holders are entitled to certain benefits, one of which being reservation of 5% seats in technical institutions. In the year 2023, the husband of the petitioner gave a representation seeking for issuance of Green Card in order to facilitate the admission of their daughter into a reputed government educational institution.By an order dated 01.01.2024, the concerned hospital was asked to submit documents certifying successful tubectomy of the petitioner on 21.10.1998. However, the hospital could not furnish such document on the ground that the same got damaged in the 1999 super-cyclone. Therefore, due to unsuccessful verification of the required documents, the CDMO expressed his inability to issue the Green Card to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition.Justice Mishra, after hearing contentions of both the sides, had dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 25.04.2025 on the primary ground that the plea is a 'stale' one, which has been made after a lapse of almost 27 years. In his words –“She appears to have approached the authorities for the first time in the year 2023, which being turned down, she approached this Court in the year 2025. More than 27 years have been elapsed in the meantime. As already stated, the Petitioner has not submitted any explanation whatsoever for such belated approach before the authority. It is trite law that stale claims are not to be entertained by the authorities. It is also trite law that stale claims cannot be entertained by this Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.”A review was sought against the aforesaid dismissal order mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not heard on the question of delay for which she had no opportunity to bring to the Court's notice that the Government Resolutions do not specify any time limit for applying for Green Card. Further, the authorities did not reject the petitioner's claim on the ground of delay. rather because of non-availability of relevant documents. The Court relied upon a catena of Supreme Court judgments to reiterate that the expression “for any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC incorporates situations where a mistake or misconception of fact or law has occurred, even if arising from an inadvertent error of the Court itself.Examining the above principle against the factual backdrop, the Bench was convinced that the petitioner was actually not heard on the question of belated filing of the writ petition. Also, the Court admitted that absence of limitation period in the relevant resolutions for raising claim for Green Card had escaped its attention. Thus, inadvertently holding the claim to be stale, the writ petition was dismissed. Acknowledging judicial fallibility and being conscious of the pernicious effect thereof, Justice Mishra was humble enough to observe –“The materials on record available in the writ petition clearly demonstrate that the petitioner's claim was not rejected by the authorities on the ground of delay but for non-availability of documents. So, the justifiability of the rejection of the claim on the above ground was to be adjudicated in the writ petition. But this Court proceeded from a different perspective and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of belated filing. From what has been narrated before, this amounts to a mistake of fact committed by the Court resulting in miscarriage of justice.”Accordingly, the review was allowed by recalling the judgment in the writ petition dated 25.04.2025. The Registry was directed to list the said writ petition for hearing.Case Title: Geeta Rath v. State of Odisha & Ors.Case No: RVWPET No. 157 of 2025Date of Judgment: October 27, 2025Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Nihal Rath, AdvocateCounsel for the State: Mr. S. Behera, Addl. Govt. AdvocateCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 145Click Here To Read/Download Order

'No One Should Suffer Because Of Court': Orissa High Court Judge Admits His 'Mistake Of Fact', Recalls Own Judgment In Review

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags