Orissa High Court
Swayam Shree Padmapur Mission vs State Of Odisha And Others …. Opposite … on 27 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
I.A. Nos.6985, 7330, 7203 and 7332 of 2026
(Arising out of W.P.(C) Nos.11140, 24976 and 25125 of 2025
I.A. Nos.6985 and 7330 of 2026
(Arising out of W.P.(C) No.11140 of 2025)
Swayam Shree Padmapur Mission .... Petitioner
Shakti Federation, Block Level
Federation, represented through its
Secretary, Smt. Mamata Panigrahi,
Rayagada
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Palit, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. A. Kejriwal, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattanaik, AGA and Mr.
S.R. Pattanaik, AGA
I.A. No.7332 of 2026
(Arising out of W.P.(C) No.25125 of 2025)
Mayurbhanj Shakti Sangha, .... Petitioners
represented through its President,
namely, Purnima Mishram,
Badasahi and another
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. S. Routray,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattanaik, AGA and Mr.
S.R. Pattanaik, AGA
I.A. No.7203 of 2026
(Arising out of W.P.(C) No.24976 of 2025)
Kanas Block Level Federation, .... Petitioner
represented through its Secretary,
Ullash Samantaray, Puri
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Dalai, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattanaik, AGA and Mr.
S.R. Pattanaik, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 20.04.2026 / date of judgment : 27.04.2026
A.C. Behera, J. Since, all these four I.As. were heard analogously on dated
21.04.2026 relating to the same matter, then, all these four I.As. are taken
up together for their final decision through this common judgment.
2. In I.A. Nos.6985 of 2026, 7332 of 2026 and 7203 of 2026, the
respective petitioners thereof have made same prayer in order to direct
the Opposite Parties and/or the Registry to supply the copies of the
notings of the Government kept in the sealed cover submitted by the
learned Advocate General of Odisha during the course of hearing on
dated 08.04.2026(corrected as per Order No.9 dated 16.04.2026) in order
to give them(petitioners) opportunity to file reply to the said notings of
Page 2 of 16
the Government after the service/supply of the copies thereof in further
support of their contentions and to pass any other order/direction as the
Court deems fit and proper.
3. I.A. No.7330 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioners thereof
praying for recalling the Order No.8 dated 08.04.2026 passed in respect
of the notings of the Government kept in the sealed cover and to hear I.A.
No.6985 of 2026 in respect of the prayers made therein by the
petitioners.
4. It is the case of the petitioners in their I.As. on the basis of Order
No.8 dated 08.04.2026 that, when during the course of hearing of the writ
petitions(from which, these I.As. have arisen), the learned Advocate
General of Odisha submitted certain notings of the Government in a
sealed cover relating to the matters of the writ petitions and when, the
said sealed cover was opened and perused by the Court and again the said
notings were kept in that cover and re-sealed and handed over to the
Secretary of the Court for its safe custody in order to peruse the same
only by the Court, if the same is required and when, the said notings of
the Government are directly related to the subject matter of the writ
petitions and when, the said notings were submitted by the Opposite
Party/State to substantiate and support its stands in the writ petitions,
then, non-disclosure of the said notings to the petitioners is a grave
Page 3 of 16
violation of the principles of natural justice, more particularly, violation
of audi alteram partem and when, the petitioners have been denied with
an opportunity to understand, examine and effectively rebut the contents
of the said notings of the Government kept in the sealed cover, then the
rights of the petitioners to have a fair hearing in the writ petitions have
become illusory.
For which, they(petitioners) filed these I.As. to recall/modify
Order No.8 dated 08.04.2026 and to direct the Opposite Parties and / or
the Registry to supply the copies of the notings of the Government kept
in the sealed cover in order to provide them(petitioners) opportunity to
submit their reply to the said notings of the Government after receiving
the copies thereof in further support of their contentions.
5. The above four I.As. were filed on behalf of the petitioners on
dated 16.04.2026 and the said I.As. were fixed to 20.04.2026 for
objection and hearing.
6. On dated 20.04.2026, the Opposite Parties/State filed objection
against the aforesaid I.As. of the petitioners after serving copies thereof
on the learned counsel for the petitioners.
On that day, i.e., on 20.04.2026, the learned Additional
Government Advocate on behalf of the State/Opposite Parties filed a
Page 4 of 16
memo on the basis of the objection of the State for returning back the
sealed cover containing the notings of the Government(which was filed
on dated 08.04.2026) stating that, the State will not rely on the notings of
the Government kept in the sealed cover,
7. To which, the learned counsels for the petitioners vehemently
objected contending that, there is no provision under law for returning
back the said sealed cover containing the notings of the Government after
being filed by the learned Advocate General of the State and after perusal
of the said notings by the Court and when the Court has already perused
the notings of the Government kept in the sealed covered, then, the
question of returning back of the same to the State does not arise.
Because, there is every possibility of biasness of the Court at the time of
judgment of the writ petitions, when the court has already perused the
notings of the Government kept in the sealed cover and the same will
ultimately influence the Court. According to them(learned counsels of
the petitioners) if, the sealed cover containing the notings of the
Government will be returned back, then, the main object of fairness of
the hearing of the writ petitions shall be frustrated.
For which, the I.As. were listed on 21.04.2026 for hearing in
respect of the matter, i.e., whether the notings of the Government kept in
Page 5 of 16
a sealed cover as per Order No.8 dated 08.04.2026 are permissible for its
return or not.
8. I have already heard from the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State.
9. During the course of hearing, in support of the above prayer made
by the petitioners in their I.As., i.e., in order to direct the Opposite
Parties/State to supply the copies of the notings of the Government, they
relied upon the following decisions:-
(1) In a case between Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited vrs.
Union of India and others : reported in (2023) 13 SCC-401 that,
–Fairness must be inherent in procedure adopted–Fair
procedure induces equality in proceedings–Non-disclosure of
information is per se violative of fair trial–Perception that decision
is accurate and just leads to building of public confidence and giving
legitimacy to the decision.
J. Administrative Law–Natural Justice–Exclusion or
Inapplicability of Rules of Natural Justice–Non-disclosure of
information on ground of national security–Cancellation of
licence of TV channel for non-clearance by Ministry of Home
Affairs for security reasons–Non-disclosure of information
relating to security threats–State must satisfy Court that national
security concern is involved and that abrogation of natural justice
principle justified.
Page 6 of 16
–Non-disclosure permissible only on grounds stipulated in
Art.19(2)–Reports of intelligence agencies impact decisions on
life, liberty and profession and absolute immunity from disclosure
would be antithetical to a transparency and accountability–
Document claimed to be related to State affairs, must be disclosed,
if on a preliminary enquiry court opines that it does not relate to
State affairs–Summary reasons for denying security clearance
constitute core irreducible minimum of procedural guarantees
under Art.14 of the Constitution, which must be disclosed–Non-
disclosure amounts to unreasonable and arbitrary means to fulfill
State’s purpose–Evidence Act, 1872—S.124--Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023–S.130--Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 19 and
21.
(2) In a case between Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vrs. Union
of India and others : reported in (2010) 13 SCC-427 that,
Administrative Law–Natural Justice–Audi Alteram Partem–
Right to hearing–Object is to give notice a reasonable opportunity
of making objection against proposed charges indicated in notice–
Reasonable opportunity explained.
(3) In a case between CDR Amit Kumar Sharma vrs. Union of
India : reported in (2023) 20 SCC-486(Para No.27) that,
All material which is relied upon by either party in course of a
judicial proceeding must be disclosed.
(4) In a case between Shiv Prasad vrs. Durga Prasad and
another : reported in (1975) 1 SCC-405(Para No.9) that,
If a person has filed an application first and thereafter, another
application is filed, he will not be allowed to prosecute the former
unless he withdrew the later.
Page 7 of 16
(5) In a case between Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co.
Ltd. vrs. State of Bihar and others : reported in (2008) 1 SCC-1
that,
The doctrine of the veil should be lifted in order to safeguard the
fundamental right of the citizens guaranteed under Article-19 of the
Constitution of India.
(6) In a case between S.P. Gupta vrs. Union of India : reported
in (1981) Suppl. SCC-87, Seven Judge Coram (Para Nos.69 and
80) that,
…Every claim for immunity in respect of a document, whatever be
the ground on which the immunity is claimed and whatever be the
nature of the document, must stand scrutiny of the court with
reference to one and only one test, namely, what does public interest
require–disclosure or non-disclosure. The final decision in regard to
the validity of an objection against disclosure would always be with
the Court.
10. On the contrary, for the return of the sealed cover containing the
notings of the Government on the basis of the objection of the State, the
learned Additional Government Advocate for the State relied upon the
following decisions:-
(1) In a case between Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited vrs.
Union of India and others : reported in (2023) 13 SCC-401.
(2) In a case between CDR Amit Kumar Sharma vrs. Union of
India : reported in (2023) 20 SCC-486.
(3) In a case between State of Uttar Pradesh vrs. Raj Narain :
reported in (1975) 4 SCC-428.
Page 8 of 16
11. It was the contentions of the learned counsels for the petitioners
relying upon the ratio of the aforesaid decisions indicated in Para No.9 of
this judgment that,
when the Court has already perused the notings of the Government
after opening the seal and before re-sealing and the said sealed cover is
under the custody of the Secretary of the Court as per Order No.8 dated
08.04.2026 for its safe custody in order to peruse the same only by the
Court, if the same is required, then, the non-disclosure and non-supply of
the copies of the said notings of the Government to the petitioners is a
grave violation of the principles of natural justice denying the
opportunity to the petitioners to understand, examine and effectively
rebut the contents of the said notings, which shall ultimately affect the
fair hearing as well as fair adjudication of the writ petitions.
Therefore, the disclosure of the notings as well as supply of the
copies thereof to the petitioners through their respective learned counsels
is necessary and the notings submitted by the learned Advocate General
of the State cannot be withheld from its disclosure, as the disclosure of
the said notings shall not affect/hamper the security of the State in any
manner.
12. To which, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State objected contending that, when in the objection as well as in the
Page 9 of 16
memo of the State, it has been specifically stated that, the State will not
rely upon the notings of the Government kept in the sealed cover and the
said notings are required to be return back, because, the notings of the
Government are privileged documents of the Government and the same
are not to be disclosed to others and the disclosure of the same will
ultimately affect the confidentiality of the State, for which, the disclosure
thereof to the other side is not permissible under law.
13. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, as per Para No.5 of
Order No.8 dated 08.04.2026 during the course of hearing,
“the learned Advocate General of the State submitted some
notings of the Government in a sealed cover relating to the matters of the
writ petitions and the said sealed cover was opened and notings of the
Government were perused by the Court, then, the said notings were
again kept in that cover and resealed and handed over to the Secretary
for its safe custody in order to peruse the same only by the Court, if the
same is required.”
14. It is the settled propositions of law that,
a citizen has a right to know about the activities of the State, its
instrumentalities, the departments and the agencies of the State. The
privilege of secrecy which existed in all times that, the State is not bound
Page 10 of 16
to disclose the facts to the citizens or the State cannot be compelled by
the citizens to disclose the facts, does not survive Now, to a great extent.
Because, as per Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950, there exists,
the right of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is based on the
foundation of the freedom or right to know. The State can impose and
should impose the reasonable restrictions in the matter like other
fundamental rights, where, it affects the National security or any other
matter affecting the Nation’s integrity. But, this right is limited and
particularly in the matter of sanitation and other allied matters every
citizen has a right to know how the State is functioning.
15. It is also the settled propositions of law that,
“notings recorded in the official files by the officers of the
Government at different levels and even the Ministers do not become the
decision of the Government, unless the same is sanctified and acted upon
by issuing an order in the name of the President or Governor, as the case
may, authenticated in the manner provided in Articles 77(2) and 166(2)
of the Constitution of India, 1950 and is communicated to the affected
persons.
The notings and/or the decisions recorded in the file of the
Government do not confer any right or adversely affect the right of any
person and the same can neither be challenged in a Court nor made
basis for seeking relief.
Even if, the competent authority records noting in the file, which
indicates that, some decision has been taken by the concerned authority,
Page 11 of 16
the said decisions can always be reviewed by the very same authority or
reversed or overturned or over-ruled by the higher functionary/authority
in the Government.
Therefore, mere notings in the file of the Government will not
construe as the decision of the Government.”
16. The law relating to the legal effect of the notings of the
Government, which has been kept in the sealed cover as per Order No.8
dated 08.04.2026 has already been clarified in the ratio of the following
decisions:-
(i) In a case between Industrial Promotion and Investment
Corporation, Orissa, Ltd.(IPICOL) vrs. Bimbadhar Panda and
others : reported in 2021(Suppl.) OLR-903(D.B.) (Para No.26) that,A mere noting in the file of the Government will not be construed as
a decision.
(ii) In a case between Shanti Sports Club and another vrs.
Union of India and others : reported in 2009(3) Civil Law
Times(S.C.)-323(Para-37), in a case between K.S.B. Ali vrs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and others : reported in (2018)11 SCC-277 that,
Notings recorded in the official files of the Government at different
levels and even the Ministers, do not become decisions of the
Government, unless the same is sanctified and acted upon by issuing
an order in the name of the President or Governor, as the case may
be, authenticated in the manner provided in Articles 77(2) and
166(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 and is communicated to the
affected persons.
Page 12 of 16
The notings and/or decisions recorded in the file dot not confer any
right or adversely affect the right of any person and the same can
neither be challenged in a court nor made basis for seeking relief.
Even if, the competent authority records noting in the file, which
indicates that, some decision has been taken by the concerned
authority, the same can always be reviewed by the same authority or
reverse or overturned or over-ruled by a higher functionary/authority
in the Government.
Therefore, mere notings in the file of the Government will not
construe as the decision of the Government.
(iii) In a case between Pimpri Chinchwad New Township
Development Authority vrs. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing
Society and others : reported in (2018) 8 SCC-215(Para-36) that,
A mere noting in the official files of the Government while dealing
with any matter pertaining to any person is essentially an internal
matter of the Government and carries with it no legal sanctity.
(iv) In a case between State of Uttranchal and another vrs. Sunil
Kumar Vaish and others : reported in (2011) 8 SCC-670 (Para-24)
that,
A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and
nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the
particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, can such noting
be treated as a decision of the Government.
17. Here, in the this matter at hand, when, as per Order No.8 dated
08.04.2026, during course of hearing, the learned Advocate General of
the State submitted some notings of the Government in a sealed cover
relating to the matter of the writ petitions and when, the said sealed cover
Page 13 of 16
was opened and perused by the Court and kept the said notings of the
Government in that cover and re-sealed the same and handed over to the
Secretary of the Court for its safe custody in order to peruse the same
only by the Court, if the same is required and when as per law, the
notings of the Government are not the decision of the Government and
said notings do not confer any right or adversely affect the right of the
petitioners in these writ petitions and when, as per law, the said notings
of the Government kept in the sealed cover as per Order No.8 dated
08.04.2026 can neither be challenged in a Court of law nor the said
notings can be made any basis for seeking any relief in the Court of law,
but, the said notings can always be reviewed/reversed/overturned/over-
ruled by the same authority or higher functionary/authority in the
Government and when, it has been stated on behalf of the State that, the
State shall not rely upon the notings of the Government kept in the sealed
cover and wants to return back the same and when, the Court has already
perused the said notings after opening the seal and has re-sealed the same
passing an order in Para No.5 of the Order dated 08.04.2026 that, the
notings of the Government are kept in the sealed cover and handed over
to the Secretary for its safe custody in order to peruse the same only by
the Court, if the same is required and when, the learned counsels for the
petitioners argued basing upon the averments made in their I.As. that,
when, the Court has already perused the notings of the Government kept
Page 14 of 16
in the sealed cover, then, there is every possibility of biasness of the
Court at the time of judgment of the writ petitions, as the learned
Advocate General of the State has already argued at length basing upon
the said notings of the Government, then at this juncture, the end of
justice shall bestly be served,
“if the notings of the Government kept in the sealed cover shall
neither be opened nor any notings in the same shall be referred either in
the judgments of the I.As. or in the writ petitions without returning back
that sealed cover containing the notings of the Government to the
Opposite Parties, but, handing over the said sealed cover to the
Registrar(Judicial) of this Court for its safe custody without allowing any
of the I.As. of the petitioners either for the disclosure of the contents of
the notings of the Government kept in the sealed cover or for recalling
the Para No.5 of Order No.8 dated 08.04.2026.”
18. As such, all the I.As. filed by the petitioners for a direction to the
Opposite Parties and/or Registry to supply the copies of the notings of
the Government kept in the sealed cover or to recall the Order No.8 dated
08.04.2026 are dismissed.
Likewise, prayer made through memo dated 21.04.2026 on behalf
of the State for returning the sealed cover containing the notings of the
Government is refused.
Page 15 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed 19.
Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA
The Secretary of this Court is directed to hand over the sealed
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, CUTTACK
cover containing the notings of the Government to the Registrar(Judicial)
Date: 27-Apr-2026 14:44:24
of the High Court immediately for its safe custody till the same is called
for or required through any specific judicial order or direction for the
same.
20 On the basis of the aforesaid observations, these I.As. are
dismissed and disposed of finally.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 27th of April, 2026/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Page 16 of 16
