Dismissed

Purusotam v. S.D.H.B.C

Orissa HC4 May 2017OJC/7560/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a writ petition challenging a sale notice under Section 68 of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act is not maintainable due to the availability of a statutory appeal. The application was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to file such an appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of without prejudice to the right to file a statutory appeal within two weeks.

Heard Sri M.K.Mallick, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri A..Mishra, le arned counsel for O.P.1 and Sri K.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for O.P.2. The writ application appears to have been filed as against the impugned notice of s ale to the decree-holder and defaulter involving some determined outstanding as against the pe titioner as reflected, vide Anenxure-4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that in absence of any regular proceeding, no such notice can be issued and under the circumstance claims for interference in the demand, vide Annexure-4 and setting aside the same. O.P.2 has filed counter, in paragraph-3 of which it has been specifically stated th at the dispute has not only been initiated against the petitioner under Section 68 of the Coop erative Societies Act involving the outstanding but the proceeding has also gone against the p etitioner and the impugned notice vide Annexure-4 is an outcome of disposal of the dispute und er Section 68 of the Act.

Sri A.Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the O.P.1 submits that for the d isposal of dispute under Section 68 of the Act, the petitioner has only remedy of appeal and n o writ petition is thus maintainable. Be that as it may, looking to the provisions contained in Section 109(1)(j) of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, this Court finds force in the submission of Sri A.Mishra, as the petitioner has a scope for filing appeal as against the impugned notice involving Annexur e-4. For

the statutory remedy available to the petitioner, this writ application is not entertainable. However, considering that the writ application was entertained in the year 1997 and the petiti oner is enjoying the interim protection as on date and while dismissing the writ application a s not entertainable for the availability of statutory remedy under the Cooperative Societies A ct, this Court observes that the order passed herein shall not stand on the way of the petitio ner from filing the statutory appeal and in the event of an appeal within two weeks, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed of.

Purusotam v. S.D.H.B.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purusotam v. S.D.H.B.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagendra Vs State

Jai Hanuman Udyog Vs State

Mohan Gopal Vs O.S.A.R.D.B. Ltd.

Shakti Maa Hara Gouri Women Shg Vs State of Odisha

Malati Sahoo andORS. Vs Collector,Jajpur

Sudhir Ku.Panda Vs State and Ors.