Disposed¶28

Bijaya Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Apr 2026WP(C)/1473/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deposit demand of Rs.62,780 quashed — orders (Annexure-1 dt.26.04.2023; Annexures-2 and 4) issued in compliance with Lokayukta Case No.1778 order dt.10.03.2023 unsustainable against non-party petitioner; Opposite Party No.4 to decide afresh after hearing; High Court of Orissa, W.P.(C ) No.1473 of 2026, Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J., order dt.07.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Office order dt.26.04.2023 (Annexure-1) and the consequential directions in letters dt.13.08.2025 and 18.11.2025 (Annexure-2) and dt.18.12.2025 (Annexure-4) quashed; Opposite Party No.4 directed to take a fresh decision on the issue after affording the Petitioner due opportunity of hearing; Writ Petition disposed of. ¶28

Bijaya Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Office order dt.26.04.2023 (Annexure-1) and the consequential orders under Annexures-2 and 4 directing the Petitioner to deposit Rs.62,780/- are sustainable in the eye of law, given that they were issued in compliance with the Lokayukta order in Lokayukta Case No.1778 dt.10.03.2023 while the Petitioner was not a party to the Proceeding before the Lokayukta.

¶21

Court's answer

Basing on the order passed by the Lokayukta in Case No.1778 dt.10.03.2023, the impugned order under Annexure-1 and the consequential directions under Annexures-2 and 4 could not have been issued directing the Petitioner to deposit Rs.62,780/-, the Petitioner admittedly having not been a party to the Proceeding before the Lokayukta.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

This Court quashed the order dt.26.04.2023 under Annexure-1 and the consequential direction contained in the letters dt.13.08.2025 and 18.11.2025 under Annexure-2 as well as in the letter dt.18.12.2025 under Annexure-4.

¶27

Key takeaways

Opposite Party No.4 was directed to take a fresh decision on the issue involved by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, on which point the Court expressed no opinion.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (Writ Petition, single Judge): The Petitioner challenged the Office order dt.26.04.2023 (Annexure-1) and consequential letters dt.13.08.2025, 18.11.2025 (Annexure-2) and dt.18.12.2025 (Annexure-4) directing him to deposit Rs.62,780/-. All such actions were taken in compliance with the Lokayukta's order in Lokayukta Case No.1778 dt.10.03.2023, and it was undisputed — including on the instruction of the Office of Lokayukta produced by the Addl. Standing Counsel — that the Petitioner was not a party to the Proceeding before the Lokayukta. Holding that orders founded on that Lokayukta proceeding could not have been issued against a non-party demanding the said deposit, the Court quashed the Annexure-1 order and the consequential directions under Annexures-2 and 4, and directed Opposite Party No.4 to take a fresh decision on the issue after giving the Petitioner due opportunity of hearing, expressly expressing no opinion on merits. The Writ Petition stood disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.1473 of 2026

¶2

Bijaya Kumar Das

¶3

…. Petitioner Mr. S. Mohanty, Adv.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Others

¶6

…. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC

¶7

COROM:

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order

07.04.2026

3. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶14

2. Basing on order dt.27.04.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction so provided by the Office of Lokayukta vide letter dt.06.04.2026 with service of copy on the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The same be kept on record. Basing on the instruction, it is fairly contended that Petitioner was not a party to the Proceeding before the Lokayukta.

¶15

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:

¶17

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ application and issue Rule NISI calling upon them to show cause as to why the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to quash the letter dated 26.04.2023 vide Annexure-1 consequent upon vide Annexure-2 Colly and 4; And if the Opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause for the said Rule to be made absolute;

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

And any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/directions(s) may kindly be passed as the Hon’ble Court considers fit and proper

¶20

And for tis act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.

¶21

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the Office order dt.26.04.2023 under Annexure-1 and consequential direction issued vide letter dt. 13.08.2025 and 18.11.2025 under Annexure-2 as well as letter dt. 18.12.2025 under Annexure-4 contended that since all such action were taken, while complying the order passed by the Lokayukta in Lokayukta Case No.1778 dt.10.03.2023 and Petitioner is not a party to the Proceeding before the Lokayukta, which is not disputed, the impugned Office order passed under Annexure-1 and consequential orders issued under Annexures-2 and 4 directing the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.62,780/are not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶22

6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel also basing on the instruction fairly contended that Petitioner was not a party to the Proceeding before the Lokayukta.

¶23

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made and since it is found that basing on the order passed by the Lokayukta in Lokayukta Case No.1778 dt.10.03.2023, the impugned order under Anenxure-1 and consequential order under Annexures-2 and 4 have been issued and Petitioner admittedly was not a party to the Proceeding before the Lokayukta, it is the view of this Court that basing on such order passed by the Lokayukta, order under Annexure-1 and consequential direction under Annexures-2 and 4

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

could not have been issued directing the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.62,780/-

¶27

7.1. Therefore, this Court while quashing the order dt.26.04.2023 under Annexure-1 and consequential direction contained in letter dt.13.08.2025 and 18.11.2025 under Annexure-2 as well as in letter dt. 18.12.2025 under Annexure-4, directs Opp. party No.4 to take a fresh decision on the issue involved by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, in which this Court expresses no opinion.

¶28

8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶29

sangita

¶30

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cut tack Date: 10-Apr-2026 17:02:41

¶33

Page 3 of 3