Orissa High Court
WP(C)/13382/2026 of UDAY KUMAR Vs STATE OF ORISSA on 15 July 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.13382 of 2026 Uday Kumar …. Petitioner Mr. Arun Kumar Budhia, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite parties Ms. Aishwarya Dash, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.13382 of 2026
Uday Kumar
….
Petitioner
Mr. Arun Kumar Budhia, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
….
Opposite parties
Ms. Aishwarya Dash, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
15.07.2026
01.
1. This writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation at the behest of the petitioner, claiming himself to be a villager of Lanjigarh in the district of Kalahandi, has been filed assailing the Notification dated 2nd February, 2026, wherein the Government decided to establish the Sub-Registrar Office at Biswanathpur instead of Lanjigarh.
2. According to the petitioner, earlier notifications dated 27th July, 2022 and 21st January, 2026 issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha would evince that the Sub-Registrar Office was decided to be created at Lanjigarh, but all of a sudden the Government has changed such opinion and decided to establish at Biswanathpur, which is not proper and impermissible. What is sought to be contended before us is that once the notification is issued by the Government, it cannot resile therefrom nor is permitted to issue a further notification.
3. We are not in agreement with the stand taken by the petitioner. Once a policy decision is taken by the Government and a notification in this regard is issued, there is no fetter on the part of the Government to revise the policy and issue further notification.
In the event the power to issue notification is conferred upon the Government, the power to revoke and/or issue further notification is ingrained and inhered into the Government. The writ Court should be slow and circumspect in interfering with the policy decision of the Government in exercise of extraordinary power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Ordinarily, the writ Court should not interfere with the policy decision, which is purely administrative and the separation of the power envisaged in the situation must be realized and borne in mind. The limited scope of interference is when the said policy decision offends any of the provisions of the Constitution or disturbs the core fabric thereof or is violative of any of the statutory provisions or fails to withstand on the test of reasonability.
4. We are given to understand by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that though the earlier notifications were issued to establish the Sub-Registrar Office at Lanjigarh, later on it was realized that the Lanjigarh Tahasil Office is also functioning and operating at Biswanathpur and, therefore, in order to avoid any inconvenience that would be caused for the splitting up the functioning of the Department, it is decided to establish the Sub-Registrar Office at Biswanathpur.
5. We, thus, find a rationality and the reasonability into such decision and, therefore, we do not find that it is a fit case where the Public Interest Litigation should be entertained and, the same is hereby dismissed.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Jul-2026 18:21:16 Signature Not Verified