p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9890 of 2026 Satyakam Dash …. Petitioner Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Special Certificate Officer- cum-Sub-Collector, Khordha & others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC (for O.P. No.1) CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER 02.05.2026 (Hybrid Mode) 01. 1. The writ application has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue Rule Nisi, in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS and/or any other appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions and order/orders, calling upon the Opp. Parties, more particularly O.P. No. 1 as to why he shall not be directed take prompt and effective steps towards expeditious disposal of the C.C. No.64/2022 and ensure payment of compensation to the Petitioner as per the direction of the Ld. Adjudicating Officer, ORERA vide Annexure- 5 within a particular time period; AND p. 2 If the Opp. Parties fails to show cause and/or show insufficient and/or false cause, make the said Rule Nisi absolute,”. 2. Though the matter is listed for fresh admission, in view of the order that is going to be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case, no notice is issued to the opposite parties. This Court is also of the view that the order that is being passed, would be no way prejudicial to either of the parties to the present writ petition. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the certificate case is kept pending and direction should be issued to the Special Certificate Officer- cum-Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar for expeditious disposal of the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner, was requested to apprise whether any application has been filed regarding the alleged strategy of the opposite party to delay the matter, drawing attention of the Court to pass appropriate order and the response based upon instruction is that no such application has been filed. 4. In considered view of this Court, at the instance of a particular litigant, a certificate case cannot be expedited when large number of cases are pending before the selfsame authority for adjudication. For such view this Court relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No(s).4758 of 2024: Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi versus State of p. 3 Maharashtra: 2024 INSC 899. Paragraphs of the said judgment relied upon are reproduced herein: “Before we part with this order, every day we notice that in several orders passed by different High Courts while rejecting the bail applications, in a routine manner, the High Courts are fixing a time-bound schedule for the conclusion of the trials. Such directions adversely affect the functioning of the Trial Courts as in many Trial Courts, there may be older cases of the same category pending. Every court has criminal cases pending which require expeditious disposal for several reasons, such as the requirement of the penal statutes, long incarceration, age of the accused, etc. Only because someone files a case in our Constitutional Courts, he cannot get out of turn hearing. Perhaps after rejecting the prayer for bail, the Courts want to give some satisfaction to the accused by fixing a time-bound schedule for trial. Such orders are difficult to implement. Such orders give a false hope to the litigants. If in a given case, in law and on facts, an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration without the trial making any progress, the Court must grant bail. Option of expediating trial is not the solution. In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of in the case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.’,1 this Court has held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus: “47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;” A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is being routinely issued by High p. 4 Courts without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution Bench. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Registry to forward soft copies of this order to Registrar Generals of all the High Courts with a request to them to circulate copies to all the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court.” (Underlined to supply emphasis) 5. Regarding issuance of direction by the High Court to the courts which are in seisin of the proceedings, apart from the observations of the constitution Bench (supra) the subsequent decision: Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi is also noted reiterating the view of the Constitution bench. It would be apt to quote the observation of the concurring view of Mithal, J. at paragraph-57 from the judgment of the constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : (2024) 6 SCC 267. “57. Sometimes, in quest of justice we end up doing injustice. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 686 is a clear example of the same. Such a situation created ought to be avoided in the normal course or if at all it arises be remedied at the earliest. In doing so, we have to adopt a practical and a more pragmatic approach rather than a technical one which may create more problems burdening the courts with superfluous or useless work. It is well said that useless work drives out the useful work. Accordingly, it is expedient in the interest of justice to provide that a reasoned stay order once granted in any civil or criminal proceedings, if not specified to be time-bound, would remain in operation till the decision of the main matter or until and unless an application is moved for its vacation and a speaking order is passed adhering to the principles of natural p. 5 justice either extending, modifying, varying or vacating the same.” 6. Significantly, the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court by the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra) were reiterated in the subsequent decision rendered in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi (supra) while discussing fundamental right of accused persons to expeditious trial when they are incarcerated due to pendency of the criminal trial. 7. In considered opinion of this Court, the principles laid down and quoted above shall also apply to other cases where adjudication is pending and parties seek to expedite the proceeding, though several such matters are pending before the authority the present case being a certificate proceeding. 8. However, it is directed, the petitioner if so advised may move the Special Certificate Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar in seisin of the matter for any appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of OPDR Act, the same shall be considered and necessary orders shall be passed in accordance with law. It is further directed both the parties shall cooperate for expeditious adjudication of the pending matter(s). 9. The petition stands disposed of. (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge jyostna