Trupti Panda Vs the State of Odisha

“Under the facts & circumstances of the above facts & factual matrix, the petitioner being a sole earning member of the family and undergoing numerous medical treatment most respectfully prays that your lordship may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application & issue the O.Ps to show cause as to why they shall not be liable for the negligence on the part of OP No.l & 2 to fix up the responsibility on the Bank to recover the embezzled amount from OP No.l and recover the loan A/c of petitioner in the interest of justice equity & fair play; matter under the pretext of written receipt from bank /competent authority a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ (s) directing the OPs to restore the embezzled amount of petitioner from OP No. 1 through reasonable order to trace the missing amount & taken in to the loan amount;

¶17

And pass further such suitable order / orders as may be deemed just & proper in the fact & circumstances of this case;

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Nov-2025 18:56:36

¶20

2

¶21

A bare perusal of the contents of the Writ Petition, it appears that this Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the judgment dated 31.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.18641 of 2020 ( Ch. Ajeet Kumar Das and Ors -vrs.- Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Odisha and Ors.). The ordering portion of the said judgment is as follows:

¶22

“xxx xxx xxx

¶23

24. From the aforementioned discussion, it has been established that, for an organization to be deemed as performing a public function, such function must be inherently associated with those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity.

¶24

25. Taking a cue from the preceding discussion, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the Respondent/Bank undertakes functions comparable to those exclusively carried out by State authorities. The Respondent/Bank is a non-statutory entity that does not perform any public function, as banking services are provided by both private and State entities. Moreover, the Respondent/Bank does not hold any monopoly status conferred or mandated by law. Although the State may promote such entities as part of its social policy or economic development initiatives, this encouragement does not equate to the performance of a “public function”.

¶25

26. In the present case, the lack of State control over the management of the Respondent/Bank significantly influences the conclusion that the Respondent/Bank does not fall within the definition of a public authority. The deputation of employees from another bank and their subsequent absorption by the Respondent/Bank does not imply that it has undertaken a public function. The Respondent/Bank operates under democratic control, and the ultimate authority regarding the service conditions of its employees lies with the management of the Respondent/Bank.

¶26

27. Therefore, in this petition, the Respondent/Bank does not qualify as a “State” or “instrumentality of the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and is thus not subject to the jurisdiction of Article 226.

¶27

V. CONCLUSION:

¶28

28. In light of the comprehensive exposition of the law provided above, and given the absence of any pleadings by the Petitioners to substantiate that

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Nov-2025 18:56:36

¶31

3

¶32

the Opposite Party/bank qualify as a State instrumentality, it is deemed unnecessary to make any further observations on this matter. 29. The Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.”

¶33

Accordingly, in light of the comprehensive exposition of the law which has been highlighted in the case of Ch. Ajeet Kumar Das (supra) and given the absence of any pleadings by the Petitioner to substantiate that the Opposite Party/bank qualify as a State instrumentality, it is deemed unnecessary to make any further observations on this matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶34

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶35

Murmu

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Nov-2025 18:56:36

Trupti Panda v. the State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trupti Panda v. the State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samrat Dumal Vs State

Manjit Kaur Sharma Vs State

Srikanta Nayak Vs State

Bulu Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Biplab Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Nrusingha Behera Vs State of Odisha