WA/208/2026 of BASANTA KUMAR ROUL Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 8 September 2026

ORDER

08.09.2026

05.

1. The application for impleadment as parties in the litigation filed by the appellants is rejected by the learned Single Judge on 15th October, 2025, which is assailed in the instant writ appeal. The reason underlying the ultimate decision is reproduced as under:- “4. Considering the submission made on behalf of the intervenors, this Court finds that the intervenors have no locus standi to be impleaded as parties to this proceeding as they have already stepped into the shoes of the learned Counsel for the State. Hence, any kind of objection pertaining to the dispute involved in this matter should be raised by the learned counsel for the State.”

2. It appears from bare reading of the reasons recorded in the impugned order that the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the said application on the premise that the interveners have no locus standi to be impleaded as parties as they have stepped into the shoes of the counsel for the State.

3. The concept of addition and/or striking out of a party in a litigation is well-recognized and is sprung from the provisions contained under Order-1, Rule-10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Though the Code of Civil Procedure is not strictly applicable to the writ proceedings, yet the principles akin thereto can be applied mutatis mutandis to the writ proceedings.

4. The Court, while considering an application seeking addition, must record a reason whether the applicant is coming within the ambit of a necessary and/or a proper party. Even if the concept of dominus litis inhered into the initiator of the litigation is well-known in the legal parlance, yet by virtue of an introduction of such provisions in the statute, the Court may implead a party provided it satisfies the ingredients of Order-1, Rule-10(2) of the CPC.

5. The question of locus standi is distinct and different from the determination whether the person is a necessary or a proper party in relation to the subject matter of dispute involved in the litigation. Therefore, the Court must return its finding on such aspect and should not have proceeded to reject the said application in such truncated manner, more so, the reasons assigned therein do not fulfill the requisite conditions envisaged under the statutory provisions.

6. Though Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel is very much vocal in inviting our attention to the merit of the writ petition, the reliefs claimed therein and the rights of the interveners to be impleaded as parties to be decided by us, we feel that once the matter is pending before the Single Bench, it would be proper that the said application of the interveners be decided on its own merit. The reason for remitting the matter to the Single Bench is laudable in the sense that a party may not lose a forum and, therefore, the Division Bench should stay away from deciding the same, when the Single Bench has not decided the case on merit.

7. We, thus, set aside the impugned order and request the learned Single Judge to take up the said application filed by the appellants/interveners and make an endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge Sisira Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2026 10:56:25 Signature Not Verified