Akshaya Kumar Mohanty Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Operative Societies, Dhenkanal Division, Dhenkanal — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Akshaya Kumar Mohanty Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Operative Societies, Dhenkanal Division, Dhenkanal — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with the order dtd.20.09.2022 in Dispute Case No.160 of 2020 quashed; matter remitted to the Opposite Party for fresh disposal, with liberty to the Opposite Party-Bank to apply to implead the Petitioners or any other officials involved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dtd.20.09.2022 relating to Dispute Case No.160 of 2020, which directed the Petitioners - never impleaded as parties to the dispute - to pay back Rs.1,37,50,997/-, is sustainable in law.

Court's answer

No such order directing the Petitioners to pay back the amount could have been passed in the absence of the Petitioners, who were not parties to Dispute Case No.160 of 2020.

Ratio / Principle

The order dtd.20.09.2022 so passed by Opposite Party-Bank in Dispute Case No.160 of 2020 is quashed.

Key takeaways

The matter is remitted to the said Opposite Party for fresh disposal, and it is open to the Opposite Party-Bank to make appropriate application to implead the present Petitioners or any other officials involved in the issue.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.26690 of 2025 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, order dated 05.12.2025): The writ petition challenged the order dtd.20.09.2022 (Annexure-1) passed in Dispute Case No.160 of 2020, whereby the Petitioners, along with two other employees including Opposite Party No.3, were held liable to pay back Rs.1,37,50,997/- although they had never been impleaded as parties to the dispute - a fact fairly conceded by counsel for the Opposite Party-Bank. Holding that no such payment order could have been passed in the absence of the Petitioners, the Court quashed the order dtd.20.09.2022, remitted Dispute Case No.160 of 2020 to the Opposite Party (Bank) for fresh disposal, and left it open to the Bank to seek impleadment of the Petitioners or any other officials involved in the issue. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly. No statute or precedent was cited.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26690 of 2025

Akshaya Kumar Mohanty & Anr.

Petitioners

Mr. A.K. Jena, Advocate

-versus-

The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, …. Opposite Parties Dhenkanal Division, Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Dhenkanal & Ors. Mr. B. Sahoo Adv.

…. Opposite Parties

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

05.12.2025

05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Pursuant to the order dtd.21.11.2025, Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel and his associates entered appearance on behalf of Opposite Party-Bank by filling the Vakalatnama in Court. The same be kept in record.

4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.20.09.2022 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-1. Vide the said order, while allowing the dispute so filed by Opposite Party-Bank, Petitioners along with another two employees were held liable to pay back a sum of Rs.1,37,50,997/-.

// 2 //

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that Petitioners were never impleaded as a party to the dispute and in absence of them, no such order could have been passed directing them to pay back any amount.

5.1 . It is contended that in the said dispute, only Opposite Party No.3 was made as a party and the order has been passed to pay the aforesaid amount by the Petitioners along with Opposite Party No.3 and another employee.

5.2 . It is contended that since the Petitioners were never impleaded as a party to the dispute, the order passed by Opposite Party No.1 directing for payment of the amount is not sustainable in the eye of law.

6. On appearance Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party-Bank also fairly contended that Petitioners were never impleaded as Party to the proceeding.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and the fact that Petitioners were not party to the proceeding in Dispute Case No.160 of 2020 and directions was issued to them to pay back the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,37,50,997/- along with two others employees including Opposite Party No.3, this Court is of the view

Page 2 of 3

// 3 //

that no such order could have been passed in absence of the Petitioners.

7.1 . Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.20.09.2022 so passed by Opposite Party-Bank in Dispute Case No.160 of 2020. While quashing the said order, this Court remits the matter to the said Opposite Party for fresh disposal of the matter. It is open for the Opposite Party-Bank to make appropriate application to implead the present Petitioners as party to the proceeding or any other officials involved in the issue.

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Subrat

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 09-Dec-2025 16:48:52

Page 3 of 3