WP(C)/17727/2026 of UMAKANTA ROUT Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 23 June 2026

ORDER

23.06.2026

01.

1. The instant writ petition is filed assailing the letters dated 04.05.2026 and 08.05.2026 issued by the Tahasildar, Pattamundai and Sub-Collector & SDM, Kendrapara respectively. By virtue of such letters, the Amin was appointed to demarcate the land which was included in the sand sairat and a passage to be created for smooth plying of the vehicle carrying the sand from the source to the multiple destinations. The letter dated 08.05.2026 reflects that during the joint inspection, a electric substation along with the structure was found to exist creating an obstruction over the said approach road and the Tahasildar was requisitioned to take necessary action for removal of the obstruction and furnished the intimation to the Sub-Collector and the Mining Officer.

2. Obviously, the electric substation with its allied structures are set up to cater the need of the essential supply of electricity in the vicinity. It admits no ambiguity that in an advance society, the electricity is one of the essential components of life and obviously while shifting the said substation and structure, the authority shall ensure that it does not disrupt such supply. Equally the road for plying the vehicle should not face any obstruction as the empirical data have shown the experience of a multiple accidents to occur causing the life of the citizenry. Precisely for such reason, the said letter dated 08.05.2026 was caused to take a decision on removal of the said obstruction and its reposition at a suitable place to ensure the seamless supply of electricity in the vicinity. The petitioner has not made out a case that the removal and/or repositioning of said electric substation along with its allied structure would cause a serious disruption encroaching upon the rights of a citizen guaranteed under the Constitution.

3. The sum and substance of the grievance raised in the instant writ petition is founded upon the guideline issued by the Department in relation to the steps to be taken at the time of a demarcation of a plot by engaging an Amin. According to the petitioner, the notice to a boundary tenant (adjacent plot holder) is mandatory and peremptory in all sense and if the demarcation has been undertaken without adhering to those conditions put in the guideline, any action based upon such report is illegal and susceptible to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The first and foremost point emerged in the instant case is whether such guideline has any statutory flavour or create any inchoate legal right amenable to be enforced through a judicial fiat.

4. We do not find any legal provision empowering the authority to issue any guideline within the statutory framework, and, therefore if the said guideline is simply an executive instruction whether the infraction have created any legally enforceable right into 3rd party. The guidelines or the administrative instructions are issued for enhancing the work efficiency and ensuring the smooth working within the Department. It creates an obligation into the persons working in the Department and also to bring uniformity in every decision or the action taken by the employee or the staff of the said Department. The instruction which is not supported by any statutory provision does not create any right into a 3rd party nor the same is capable of being enforced as a legally enforceable right in the Courts.

5. The effect in the legal efficacy of such executive instruction came up for consideration before the Apex Court in case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia and another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 279 where the Apex Court held that such guidelines issued without having any statutory provision is simplicitor and advisory in character, and, therefore, does not confer any right into a 3rd party in the following: “23. Issuance of such guidelines, however, is not being controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the tenant. [See (Supp) SCC at 508, Narendra Kumar Maheswari v. Union of India; SCC at p.232, Bhim Singhji v. Union of India; (SCC para 31), J.R.Raghupathy v. State of A.P;

Uttam Parkash Bansal v. LIC of India and Punjab National Bank v. Lord Krishna Paper Industiries.”

6. Since we have not been taken to any statutory provision clogging the powers on the authority to issue such guidelines, the guidelines as relied upon by the petitioner is merely an advisory in nature and such executive instruction does not create any legally enforceable right into a 3rd party.

7. We, thus, do not find any merit in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No cost.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

Bichi

Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 24-Jun-2026 15:48:48 Signature Not Verified