Orissa High Court Flags 'Ego' Of State Functionaries In Not Executing Consent Decree Passed By Supreme Court In 1992, Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost

“Delayed justice is egregious form of human rights violation,” the Orissa High Court recently remarked while imposing an exemplary cost of rupees two lakh on the State for its apathy in not executing a clear order passed by the highest Court of the land more than three decades back.

Drawing curtains to almost five-decade-old “relentlessly fought legal battle”, the Single Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad observed –

“In the case at hand, nearly five decades having lapsed in the court corridors, not even a fig leaf has fallen into the pocket of Decree Holders. Delayed justice is egregious form of human rights violation. At least, as a concession to shortness of human life, litigation longevity needs to be shortened, by devising new techniques. It is high time that the stakeholders converge their ideas to achieve it.”

Factual matrix

Udayanath Sahoo and R.S. Bhatia (the present decree-holders), were the licensed forest contractors. Bhatia had taken forest lease in 1975-76 after being declared the highest bidder in a public auction held by Divisional Forest Officer, Karanjia Division. Upon committing default, the contract was terminated and thereafter in a subsequent public auction, the same was awarded to Sahoo.

Bhatia challenged termination of his contract and its award to Sahoo before the High Court, which came to be allowed by order dated 26.04.1978. Being aggrieved, Sahoo filed a civil appeal before the Apex Court and the State also filed another appeal challenging the conclusion reached at by the High Court.

Subsequently, a compromise was arrived at between Sahoo and Bhatia, considering which the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by a common order dated 27.03.1992, obligating the State to identify the uncut trees in order to work out the settlement arrived at between the parties.

Despite of the clear order of the top Court along with multiple representations made by the decree-holders, the State showed lethargy in carrying out the order. Getting no alternative, the decree-holders filed contempt petitions against the State seeking compliance of the order dated 27.03.1992.

Instead of ensuring compliance, the State moved interim applications in the disposed of civil appeals seeking modification of the said order contending that the felling of trees inside a sanctuary was impermissible under Section 29 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions as well as the IAs by an order dated 28.01.1994 observing, “Parties may work out their rights in the appropriate forum”.

Therefore, the decree-holders filed execution petition before the Civil Judge, Karanjia which was rejected in 1997, giving rise to the present execution case before the High Court under Order XLV Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Maintainability and 'privity of contract'

Negating the contention of the State, the Court held that the order made by the Apex Court on 27.03.1992 cannot be disputed to be a 'final order' within the meaning of Order XLV Rule 1, inasmuch as after that order, nothing remained pending. Rule 15 of the said order further made it clear that both the decrees and orders of the Apex Court are executable by the Court from which the appeal arose. Therefore, no question on maintainability of the execution case arises.

The State further laid a challenge to the executability of the order, contending that the same came to be passed on the basis of a compromise arrived at between two private parties and thus, there is no privity of contract vis-à-vis the State. Justice Shripad, however, could not agree with such argument. Discarding claim of the State, he said –

“Our Constitution, vide Article 144 obligates every civil authority to act in aid of the decisions of Apex Court, whether party eo nomine or not. This applies with more vigor here, inasmuch as civil authorities are none other than the Judgment Debtors, being parties to the proceedings who were in so many words directed to give effect to the settlement recorded in the order dated 27.03.1992, whereby subject Civil Appeals were disposed of.”

Doctrine of 'frustration of contract' not applicable

It was further contention of the State that in view of nova causa interveniens i.e. the enactments of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the order/decree in question has become inexecutable. The Court nixed such submission by observing –

“1980 Act was already there, as 1972 Act well was, when C.A. Nos.62 & 63 of 1979 were disposed of only on 27.03.1992. The former was ten-year old and the later 20 years, as on that date. Thus, it is not a new development that was not within the contemplation of court & parties, when the final order was made. Secondly, Judgment Debtors' I.A. No.2 & 3 of 1993 seeking modification of the settlement, as recorded in the order, which is already discussed, were negatived. Therefore, this contention is nothing but an afterthought intended to defeat the decree, if not defraud the Decree Holders.”

Citing Chitty on Contracts (25^th Edition), the Court further doubted the applicability of the doctrine of 'frustration on contract' in the instant factual scenario.

“The doctrine of frustration vociferously argued by the learned AGA is largely confined to the realm of law of contract. It is true that a compromise decree is a contract between the parties with seal of the court superadded. This Court is not sure that the doctrine of frustration obtaining in the realm of law of contract would readily apply to the enforcement of court orders/decrees.”

Mere showing ritualistic respect not sufficient

Justice Shripad again held if primary rights under the decree cannot be enforced for some contingencies, then their secondary rights have to be enforced by way of granting substituted remedy, and it is the duty of Executing Court to make all endeavours in this direction.

“Orders/decrees of courts, more particularly of the highest Court of the country, cannot go unimplemented by the Judgment Debtors with impunity. They ought to be enforced, when parties fail to implement the same. Mere showing ritualistic respect to courts, is not sufficient. A party victorious in the legal battle has to reap the fruits of litigation, and nothing short of that would satisfy him.”

Highlighting lassitude coupled with authoritarian ego on the part of State functionaries, the Judge said –

“The State and its functionaries conduct themselves as model litigants. When a citizen wins a legal battle, State should rejoice it. That spirit is not seen nowadays. At times, State functionaries take ego trip. That drives the citizens to think, if State is their first enemy. This does not auger well to the good governance.”

Keeping in view the above, the Court asked the State to supply the decree-holders the quantity of logs of wood in terms of settlement recorded by the top Court within three months, subject to deficit of stipulated payments being made by the decree-holders with simple interest @ 6% per annum within four weeks. Alternatively, the judgement-debtors shall pay the present market value of the quantity of logs of the nature, minus the deficit payment with interest payable by the decree-holders, within three months.

Lastly, fixing accountability of the State for unreasonable delay in executing the order and meaninglessly dragging avoidable litigations for decades, the Court ordered it to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakh) by way of exemplary costs to the decree-holders.

Case Title: Udayanath Sahoo (Dead) represented by LRs. & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No: Execution Case No. 02 of 1997

Date of Judgment: September 08, 2025

Counsel for the Decree-Holders: Mr. G. Mukharjee, Senior Advocate with M/s. P. Mukharjee, B. Mishra, J. Rath, S. Pattnaik, M.K. Majumdar, N.K. Shit & S. Panigrahi, Advocates

Counsel for the Judgment-Debtors: Mr. D. Lenka, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 118

Click Here To Read/Download Order