Disposed¶21

Korikana Rajesh @K Rajesh v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Jul 2026WP(C)/19582/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Korikana Rajesh @ K. Rajesh v. State of Odisha; removal of councillor, Ward No.5, Kashinagar NAC, Gajapati; notification dated 15.04.2026; Section 38-A / Rule 38-A(2), Orissa Municipal Act 1950; statutory alternative remedy; appeal; condonation of delay before District Judge; writ petition disposed; Justice V. Narasingh.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 38-A(2) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, with liberty to file an application for condonation of delay before the learned District Judge. ¶21

Korikana Rajesh @K Rajesh Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.19582 of 2026

¶2

Korikana Rajesh @ K. Rajesh

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

Mr. S. K. Dash, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1. State of Odisha, …. Opposite Parties represented through its Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Development Deptt., Bhubaneswar

¶7

2. The Director, Municipality Administation & ExOfficio Additional Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Bhubaneswar

¶8

3. Collector & District Magistrate, Gajapati

¶9

4. Executive Officer, Kashinagar, NAC, Gajapati

¶10

Mr. P. K. Ray, AGA

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

02.07.2026

Order No.

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

The present writ application has been filed assailing the notification dated 15.04.2026 passed by the Government in the Housing ad Urban Development Department whereby the Petitioner was removed as councillor of Ward No.5 of Kashinagar NAC, Gajapati in purported exercise of the powers conferred under Section 38-A of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950.

¶18

On going through the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act dealing with removal of resignation and term of councillor in the chapter-IV, it is seen that an appeal is provided for under Rule 38-A (2) of the Orrisa Municipality Act for redressal of the grievance of the Petitioner.

¶19

In view of existence of such statutory alterative remedy, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application in exercise of plenary powers. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to take steps in terms of the provisions as contained in Section 38-A (2) of the Orrisa Municipality Act, 1950.

¶20

It shall be open for the Petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay which shall be dealt with in accordance with law by the learned District Judge in the event an appeal is preferred.

¶21