CUTTACK, India, June 13 -- Orissa High Court issued the following Judgement on May 12:
1. The seminal point involved in the instant writ petition is whether the interlocutory application seeking implementation of the parent order is maintainable in a disposed of proceeding.
2. The order impugned in the instant appeal would reveal that the single Bench directed the state-respondents to ensure the due implementation of the parent order which according to the appellant cannot be passed by any stretch of imagination as the Court becomes functus officio the moment the final order and/or judgment is passed, which brings quietus to the proceeding. Such being the pivotal point involved in the instant appeal, we invited the appearing counsels to address us on such point.
3. Mr. Gautam Misra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant vociferously submits that the certainty and/or finality to any litigation in the courts of the country is a fundamental principle as no litigation shall remain open to be adjudicated upon at all point of time. According to him, the Judge does not retain jurisdiction nor would attempt to exercise such jurisdiction after it becomes functus officio i.e., by delivering the final verdict except within the limited contours as provided in the various provisions of the statute. In support of the aforesaid stand taken before us, Mr. Misra, learned Senior Advocate relies upon a judgment of the apex Court rendered in case of Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3677 and a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in case of Telecom Watchdog through its Secretary Vikram Mittal v. Union of India through its Secretary Department of Telecommunications and others, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8811.
4. Per contra, Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.5 submits that there is no absolute fetter in filing an interlocutory application in a disposed of matter as contended by Mr. Misra in his submission. He further submits that the application to implement the parent order or its operative portion in a disposed of proceeding is maintainable as the Court does not decide any new issue, but goes by the ipse dixit of the operative portion. To buttress the aforesaid submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the apex Court delivered in case of K.A. Ansari and another v. Indian Airlines Limited, 2009 (2) SC 164. He, thus, submits that there cannot be an absolute bar in maintaining an interlocutory application in a disposed of proceeding and, therefore, the contention of the appellant that an absolute embargo is created in filing any miscellaneous application/interlocutory application in the disposed of matter is not legally correct.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63KvwgJ4pt6FzaI0M67W5r7342kyqyv7KGRG5jozcEH8%2BNv&caseno=WA/438/2026&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010197922026&state_code=11&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
