{"id":123541,"date":"1998-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998"},"modified":"2015-11-16T06:06:31","modified_gmt":"2015-11-16T00:36:31","slug":"sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998","title":{"rendered":"Sri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: M S Manohar<\/div>\n
Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, D.P. Wadhwa<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSRI GOPABANDHU BISWAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKRISHNA CHANDRA MOHANTY & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t21\/04\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nSUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
[With C.A. Nos. 3456-3457 of 1996 and C.A. Nos. 3458-3460 of
\n1996]
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nMrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  in Civil  Appeal Nos. 3451-3455 of 1995,
\nGopabandhu Biswal, was in military service prior to November
\n1972. After  his release  from military\t service, he applied
\nfor the\t post of Assistant Commandant in the Orissa Military
\nPolice pursuant\t to an advertisement published by the Orissa
\nPublic Service\tCommission inviting  applications  from\t ex-
\nmilitary  officers.   He  was\tselected  and  appointed  as
\nAssistant Commandant  in the Orissa Military Police pursuant
\nto  the\t  advertisement.  The  appellant  qualified  in\t the
\ndepartmental examinations  and was  confirmed  as  Assistant
\nCommandant  with   effect   from   15.11.1975.\t Thereafter,
\naccording to  the appellant,  though  he  was  eligible\t for
\nconsideration for  promotion to\t the Indian  Police  Service
\ncadre, he  was not  considered for  promotion to  the Indian
\nPolice Service\t(I.P.S.) cadre.\t Because  according  to\t the
\nrespondents, only  Deputy Superintendents  of Police  in the
\nOrissa Police  force were  eligible  for  promotion  to\t the
\nI.P.S. cadre.  The appellant  filed a  writ petition  in the
\nOrissa High  Court in 1982 praying for a writ of mandamus to
\nconsider him  for promotion to the I.P.S. cadre. The Central
\nAdministrative\tTribunal,   Cuttack  Bench,   to  which\t his
\npetition was  transferred after\t coming into  force  of\t the
\nAdministrative Tribunals  Act, 1985,  held that\t the post of
\nDeputy Superintendent  of Police and Assistant Commandant of
\nthe Orissa  Military Police constituted a single cadre prior
\nto 5th\tof November,  1980. His\t application was, therefore,
\nallowed\t by  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  by\t its
\njudgment and  order dated  24.12.1991. The  Tribunal gave  a
\ndirection that\this case  should be considered for promotion
\nwith effect  from 1.1.1997 in respect of each year beginning
\ntherefrom till\tJanuary 1980.  After 4th  of November, 1980,
\nthe appellant,\tif the\tis not\tpromoted earlier,  does\t not
\ndeserve further\t consideration because the post of Assistant
\nCommandant was\tbifurcated into a separate cadre with effect
\nfrom 5.11.1980.\n<\/p>\n
     In the appellant’s said application before the Tribunal
\nwhich was  re-numbered as  T.A.No. 1 of 1989 the respondents
\nwere the  Union of  India, the\tState of Orissa and 25 other
\nrespondents who\t had superseded\t the appellant for promotion
\nto the Indian Police Service.\n<\/p>\n
     The State\tof Orissa  and two  other respondents  filed
\nS.L.P (C)  No. 7479  of 7479  of 1992  for  the\t purpose  of
\nchallenging the decision of the Tribunal dated 24.12.1991 in
\nthe appellant’s\t T.A.No. 1  of\t1989.  By  its\torder  dated
\n3.8.1992, the  special leave  petition was dismissed by this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
     In July 1993, one and a half years after the Tribunal’s
\ndecision of  24th of  December, 1991  in T.A. No. 1 of 1989,
\nrespondents 1  and 2, Krishna Chandra Mohanty and Rajkishore
\nDash, who  were in  the Orissa State Police Service filed an
\napplication before  the Central\t Administrative Tribunal  at
\nCuttack which  was subsequently\t Converted in  to  a  review
\npetition and  numbered as  R.A.No. 16  of 1993.\t  These\t two
\nrespondents contended  that the\t decision of the Tribunal in
\nT.A.No. 1  of 1989  to the  effect that the cadres of Deputy
\nSuperintendents of  Police and\tAssistant Commandants in the
\nState Military\tPolice constituted  a single  cadre  in\t the
\nOrissa police  Service till 4.11.1980 was incorrect and that
\non a  proper examination  and interpretation of all relevant
\ndocuments and  Governments  Orders  in\tthis  connection  it
\nshould be  held that  Deputy Superintendents  of Police\t and
\nAssistant  Commandants\t in  Orissa  Military  Police  never
\nconstituted a  single cadre at any time. They contended that
\nthe two\t cadres have always been separate and that Assistant
\nCommandants in\tthe Orissa  Military Police are not eligible
\nfor promotion  to Indian  Police Service.  A similar  Review
\nApplication No.\t 18 of\t1993 was  filed by Manmohan Praharaj
\nand Anup Kumar Patnaik who were direct recruits to the cadre
\nof Indian Police Service. At around the same time, O.A. Nos.
\n276, 277  and 278 of 1993 were filed by three applicants who
\nwere, at  the material\ttime, Assistant\t Commandants in\t the
\nOrissa Military Police praying for granting them the benefit
\nof the\tdecision of  the Tribunal  in T.A.  No. 1\/89 for the
\npurpose of promotion to the Indian Police Service.\n<\/p>\n
     These review  petitions as\t well as  applications\twere
\nconsidered together  by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
\nCuttack. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment dated 24th of
\nJune,  1994,   has  reviewed   its  earlier  judgment  dated
\n24.12.1991 in  T.A.No. 1\/89  on the  ground of\tthere  being
\nerror apparent\ton the\tface of the record. The Tribunal has
\nheld that  the two cadres of Deputy Superintendent of Police
\nand Assistant  Commandant  of  Orissa  Military\t Police\t are
\nseparate  cadres   from\t  inception   and   that   Assistant
\nCommandants are\t not eligible  for promotion  to the  Indian
\nPolice Service,\t The Tribunal  has thereupon  dismissed\t the
\napplication of\tthe appellant, Gopabandhu Biswal, in T.A.No.
\n1\/89. It  has also  dismissed the three pending applications
\nbearing O.A.  Nos. 276,\t 277 and  278 of  1993. The  present
\nappeals are filed from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal
\nin the two review petitions as well as the three O.As.\n<\/p>\n
     Was  the\tTribunal  entitled  to\treview\tits  earlier
\njudgment dated\t24.12.1991 in T.A.No. 1\/89? Section 22(3) of
\nthe  Administrative   tribunals\t Act,  1985  confers  on  an
\nAdministrative Tribunal\t discharging its functions under the
\nAct, the  same powers  as are  vested in a civil court under
\nthe Code  of Civil Procedure while trying a suit in respect,
\ninter alia, of reviewing its decisions. Section 22(3) (f) is
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “Section 22(3) (f):<\/p>\n
     A\tTribunal  shall\t have,\tfor  the
\n     purpose\tof    discharging    its
\n     functions under  this Act, the same
\n     powers as\tare vested  in\ta  civil
\n     court  under   the\t Code  of  Civil
\n     Procedure, 1908 ( 5 of 1908), while
\n     trying a  suit, in\t respect of  the
\n     following matters, namely, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)to(e) ……………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (f) reviewing its decisions;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (g) to (i)………………….. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A civil court’s power to review its won decisions under
\nthe Code of Civil Procedure is contained in Order 47 Rule 1.
\nOrder 47 Rule 1 provides as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “Order 47 Rule 1;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Application for review of judgment.
\n     (1)  Any person considering himself
\n\t  aggrieved,-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  by a decree or order from
\n\t       which   an    appeal   is
\n\t       allowed, but  from  which
\n\t       no   appeal    has   been
\n\t       preferred,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  by a decree or order from
\n\t       which   no    appeal   is
\n\t       allowed, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  by   a  decision\t  on   a
\n\t       reference from a court of
\n\t       Small Causes,
\n     and who,  from the discovery of new
\n     and important  matter  or\tevidence
\n     which not\twithin his  knowledge or
\n     could not be produced by him at the
\n     time when\tthe decree  as passed or
\n     order made,  or on\t account of some
\n     mistake or\t error apparent\t on  the
\n     face of  the  record,  or\tfor  any
\n     other sufficient reason, desires to
\n     obtain  a\t review\t of  the  decree
\n     passed or\torder made against him ,
\n     may apply\ta review  of judgment to
\n     the Court\twhich passed  the decree
\n     or made the order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2) ……………………… “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  power\t  of  review   which  is   granted   to\t  an
\nAdministrative Tribunal is similar to power given to a civil
\ncourt under  Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure.
\nTherefore, any\tperson (inter  alia) who  considers  himself
\naggrieved by  a decree\tor order  from which  an  appeal  is
\nallowed, but  from which  no appeal  has been  preferred can
\napply for  review under\t Order 47  Rule 1(1) (a) . An appeal
\nlies to\t this Court  from a  decision of  the Administrative
\nTribunal. If  an appeal\t is preferred,\tthe power  to review
\ncannot be  exercised. In  the present  case, a special leave
\npetition to  file an  appeal was preferred from the judgment
\nof the\tTribunal in T.A.No. 1 of 1989 to this Court, and the
\nspecial leave  petition was  rejected. As a result the order
\nof the\tTribunal in  T.A.No. 1\tof  1989  became  final\t and
\nbinding. The  rejection of  a petition\tfor leave  to appeal
\nunder Article  136 of the petition for leave to appeal under
\nArticle 136  of the  Constitution,  in\teffect,\t amounts  to
\ndeclining to  entertain an  appeal, thus making the judgment
\nand order appealed against final and binding. Once a special
\nleave petition\tis filed  and rejected,\t the party cannot go
\nback to\t the Tribunal  to apply\t for review.  In the case of
\nState of  Maharashtra &\t Anr.  v.  Prabhakar  Bhikaji  Ingle<\/a>
\n([1993] 3  S.C.C. 463)\tthis Court  held that when a special
\nleave petition\tfrom the order of the Tribunal was dismissed
\nby a non-speaking order, the main order was confirmed by the
\nSupreme Court.\tThereafter the\tpower of  review  cannot  be
\nexercised by  the tribunal. The Court said that the exercise
\nof power  of review  by the  Tribunal in  such circumstances
\nwould be  “deleterious to  judicial  discipline”.  Once\t the
\nSupreme Court has confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal
\n, that\tbecomes final.\tIn Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust
\nv. Swami Prakasananda & Ors.<\/a> ([1997] 6. S.C.C. 78) the above
\ndecision was reaffirmed. This Court held that after an order
\nof this\t Court\tdismissing  the\t S.L.P.\t in  limine  from  a
\njudgment of the High Court, the High Court cannot review it.
\nThe  Court   followed  the  earlier  judgment  in  State  of
\nMaharashtra & Anr. v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle<\/a> (supra).\n<\/p>\n
     In the  case of K. Ajit Babu & Ors. v. Union of India &
\nOrs.<\/a> ([1997] 6 S.C.C. 47) to which one of us was party, this
\nCourt examined\tSection\t 22(3)\t(f)  of\t the  Administrative
\nTribunals Act,\t1985 and held that an application for review
\nunder that  section attracts the principles contain in Order
\n47 Rule\t 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore once an
\nS.L.P is preferred and dismissed, review is not permissible.
\nThe same  view has  been taken\tby this\t Court in  Raj Kumar
\nSharma &  Ors. etc.  etc. v. Union of India Y Ors. etc. etc.
\n(1995 (2)  SCALE 23).  The Court  observed in that case that
\nthe Tribunal  was in error in entertaining a review petition
\nand allowing it after the special leave petition against its
\nmain judgment  had been\t dismissed by  this  Court  and\t the
\nreview petition filed in this Court against the dismissal of
\nthe special  leave petition  had also been dismissed. It was
\nundisputed that\t the grounds  on which the review was sought
\nbefore the  Tribunal was a ground taken in the special leave
\npetition as  well as  in the  review petition  filed in this
\nCourt. In  such a situation, to say the least, it was wholly
\ninappropriate for  the Tribunal\t to sit\t in judgment  on the
\nmerits of  this Court’s\t order dismissing  the special leave
\npetition giving\t finality to  the Tribunal’s  main order. In
\nthe present case, therefore, on the dismissal of the special
\nleave petition\tby this\t Court, the judgment of the Tribunal
\nin T.A.\t No. 1\tof 1989\t became final and binding as between
\nthe parties  and the  Tribunal had  no power  to review that
\nJudgment thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
     In the present case, however, it is urged that the four
\napplicants who\tfiled the  two review  petitions before\t the
\nTribunal were  not parties  to the  main petition. They were
\nalso not  parties to the special leave petition filed before
\nthis Court  which was  dismissed. However  they are  parties
\naggrieved and  hence are  entitled to  apply for a review of
\nthe main  judgment of  the Tribunal. It is contended by them
\nthat the  judgment of  the Tribunal  holding  that  the\t two
\ncadres of  Deputy Superintendent  of  Police  and  Assistant
\nCommandant were\t a single cadre till 5.11.1980, has affected
\nthe chances  of promotion  of the applicants and, therefore,
\nthe appellants,\t being persons\taggrieved, are\tentitled  to
\nmaintain such  review  petitions  when\tthey  had  not\tbeen
\nparties to  the earlier\t judgment as  well  as\tthe  earlier
\nspecial leave  petition. We  will assume  for the time being
\nthat the  applicants are  persons aggrieved.  Even  so,\t the
\nquestion is  whether they  can have  a\tjudgment  which\t has
\nattained finality  by virtue  of an order of this Court, set
\naside in  review. There\t is no\tdoubt that  as\tbetween\t the
\nparties to  the main  judgment, the  judgment is  final\t and
\nbinding. The  respondents, State  of  Orissa  and  Union  of
\nIndia, are,  therefore, bound to give effect to the judgment
\nof the\tTribunal in  T.A.No.  1\t of  1989  in  the  case  of
\nGopabandhu Biswal.  If this  is so,  can a  third  party  by
\nfiling a review petition get that same judgment reviewed and
\nobtain an  order that  Gopabandhu Biswal  is not entitled to
\nthe  benefits  of  the\tdirections  contained  in  the\tmain
\njudgment since\tthat judgment  is now set aside? In our view
\nthis wi\t wholly impermissible.\tIt will lead to re-opening a
\nmatter which  has attained finality by virtue of an order of
\nthis  Court.  The  applicants,\teven  if  they\tare  persons
\naggrieved, do  not have,  in the  present case,\t a right  of
\nreview under  any part\tof Order 47 Rule 1. Even under Order
\n47 Rule 1(2), the party not appealing from a decree or order
\ncan apply  for review only on grounds other than the grounds
\nof appeal  which were before the appellate court, and during
\nthe pendency  of the  appeal. In  the present  case all\t the
\ngrounds which  were urged  in review  were, in\tfact,  urged
\nbefore the  Tribunal at\t the time  when the Tribunal decided
\nthe main  application  and  they  were\talso  urged  by\t the
\npetitioner in  the special  leave petition  which was  filed
\nbefore this  Court. The\t special  leave\t petition  has\tbeen
\ndismissed. The\tsame grounds cannot be again urged by way of
\na review  petition by  another party  who was not a party in
\nthe main petition.\n<\/p>\n
     According to  the applicants  certain documents  though
\nproduced  before  the  Tribunal\t were  not  noticed  by\t the
\nTribunal in  deciding the  main\t matter.  Even\tso,  once  a
\njudgment of  a Tribunal\t has attained finality, it cannot be
\nreopened after\tthe  special  leave  petition  against\tthat
\njudgment has  been dismissed.  The only\t remedy for a person
\nwho wants  to challenge\t that judgment is to file a separate
\napplication before  the Tribunal in his own case an persuade
\nthe Tribunal  either to refer the question to a larger Bench
\nor, if the Tribunal prefers to follow its early decision, to
\nfile an\t appeal from  the Tribunal’s  judgment and  have the
\nTribunal’s judgement  set aside\t in appeal  review is not an
\navailable remedy.\n<\/p>\n
     Undoubtedly when  the Tribunal interprets Service Rules
\nand Regulations,  the interpretation  so  given\t may  affect
\nother members  of that\tService –  past, present  or future.
\nOnce can  understand a\twider meaning  in this context being
\ngiven to  the phase  “person aggrieved”,  thus enlarging the
\nright of persons to intervene either at the hearing before
\nthe Tribunal, or in appeal, or for filing a review petition.
\nNevertheless,  this   right  must   be\texercised   at\t the
\nappropriate time  and in  accordance   with  law.  A  review
\npetition must  be within  the scope  of Section 22(3) (f) of
\nthe Administrative  Tribunals Act  read with Order 47 Rule 1
\nand  must   comply  with   the\tRules\tframed\t under\t the
\nAdministrative\t Tribunals    Act.   They    preset   review
\napplications are  not within  the principles  laid  down  in
\nOrder 47  Rule 1.  They also do not comply with the relevant
\nRules.\tRule  17  of  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal
\n(procedure) Rules,  1987 prescribes,  inter  ALIA,  that  no
\napplication for review shall be entertained
\nunless it  is filed within thirty days from the dated of the
\nreceipt of a copy of the order sought to be reviewed. In the
\npresent case  the review petitions were filed one and a half
\nyears after  the main  judgment was  delivered and  one year
\nafter the  special leave  petition was\tdismissed. We do not
\nfind any explanation of this delay.\n<\/p>\n
     It is difficult to include the applicants in the review
\napplications in\t the category  of “persons  aggrieved”.\t The
\nmain applicant\ti.e. the present appellant-Biswal had joined
\nas party  respondents all  those persons  who had superseded
\nhim for\t selection to  the Indian  Police Service Since they
\nwould be  persons affected  in\tcase  he  succeeded  in\t his
\napplication.  The  Tribunal  had  directed  that  Biswal  be
\nconsidered for\tpromotion between  1977\t and  1980  and\t not
\nthereafter. During this period, the two applicants in review
\napplication No.\t 16 of\t1993 were nowhere within the zone of
\nconsideration for  promotion to I.P.S. One of the applicants
\njoined the  police service only in 1974 and was not eligible
\nfor further promotion till 1982. The other applicant, though
\neligible for  promotion, was  on account  of his rank in the
\nseniority list,\t not within the zone of consideration at any
\ntime prior  to 5.11.1980.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the\t two
\napplicants  in\treview\tapplication  No.  16  of  1993\twere
\nselected for promotion to I.P.S. only in 1993 when they were
\nincluded in  the select\t list of 1993. Therefore, they could
\nnot have  been made  parties in\t T.A. No. 1 of 1989. At that
\npoint of  time,\t these\tapplicants  had\t only  a  chance  of
\npromotion in future. This does not confer and legal right on
\nthese applicants  and they  cannot be  considered as parties
\naggrieved by  the impugned  judgment. however, leniently one
\nmay construe  the  term\t ‘party\t aggrieved’,  a\t person\t not
\ndirectly affected  cannot be  so considered.  Otherwise\t for
\nyears  to  come,  every\t person\t who  becomes  eligible\t for
\npromotion will\tbe considered  a party\taggrieved’ when\t the
\nTribunal interprets  any Service Rule such as in the present
\ncase. Only persons who are directly and immediately affected
\nby  the\t  impugned  order  can\tbe  considered\tas  ‘parties
\naggrieved’ under  Section 22(3)\t (f) read with Order 47 Rule\n<\/p>\n
1.
\n     The same  is the  case with  the applicants  in  Review
\nApplication No.\t 18 of\t1993. These  two applicants  in\t the
\nReview Application  No. 18  of 1993  were direct recruits to
\nthe Indian  Police Service  of 1975  and 1976  batches.\t The
\nquota for  direct recruits is different and these applicants
\nwere not  concerned with  the appointments  made within\t the
\nquota of  promotes from the State Police Service. Therefore,
\nit is  difficult to  look upon them as persons aggrieved. If
\nat all\tthey would be affected by the promotion given to the
\noriginal applicant-Biswal, that would be in respect of their
\nchance for  promotion to the next higher post. This does not
\nconfer any  legal right\t on these  applicants. They  cannot,
\ntherefore, be  considered as  persons aggrieved. In our view
\nthe Tribunal  was not  entitled to,  and ought\tnot to\thave
\nentertained the\t review applications  once the special leave
\npetition from he main judgment and order had been dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Tribunal   also  had\t before\t it,   three   other
\napplications which  were  filed\t under\tSection\t 19  of\t the
\nAdministrative\tTribunals   Act\t 1985.\t The  Tribunal\t had
\ndismissed these\t applications in  view of having allowed the
\nreview petitions and set aside its earlier order in T.A. No.
\n1 of  1988. In view of the fact that the Tribunal’s judgment
\nin review  applications cannot\tbe sustained,  the  Tribunal
\nwill be\t required to  examine these three applications filed
\nbefore it  on merit  and dispose  them of in accordance with
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
     In deciding  these applications,  the  Tribunal  cannot
\nignore its  earlier judgment.  “The use\t of precedent  is an
\nindispensable foundation  upon which  to decide\t what is the
\nlaw and\t its application the individual case; it provides at
\nleast some  degree of  certainty upon  which individuals can
\nrely in\t the conduct  of their affairs, as well as provide a
\nbasis of  orderly development  of  legal  rules”.  (Halsubry
\nFourth Edn.  Vol. 26  para 573).  If the Tribunal decides to
\nfollow\tits   earlier  judgment\t the  respondents  in  these
\napplications can  file petitions for leave to appeal if they
\nso desire; and any other person aggrieved may also, with the
\nleave of  the Court,  apply for\t special leave\tto  file  an
\nappeal. In  the event of the Tribunal coming to a conclusion
\nthat its  earlier  judgment  requires  reconsideration,\t the
\nTribunal can refer the question to a larger Bench. In either
\ncase the  persons aggrieved  can apply\tand intervene to put
\nforward their point of view.\n<\/p>\n
     We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the order
\nof the\tTribunal  in  review  applications  and\t remand\t the
\nOriginal Applications\tNos.  276, 277\tand 278\t of 1993 for
\nfresh consideration  by the Tribunal in accordance with law.
\nThere will, however, be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998 Author: M S Manohar Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, D.P. Wadhwa PETITIONER: SRI GOPABANDHU BISWAL Vs. RESPONDENT: KRISHNA CHANDRA MOHANTY & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/04\/1998 BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: [With C.A. Nos. 3456-3457 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123541","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-16T00:36:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-16T00:36:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3290,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998\",\"name\":\"Sri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-16T00:36:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-16T00:36:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998","datePublished":"1998-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-16T00:36:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998"},"wordCount":3290,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998","name":"Sri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-16T00:36:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopabandhu-biswal-vs-krishna-chandra-mohanty-ors-on-21-april-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123541","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=123541"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123541\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}