Sunil Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21823 of 2026

¶2

Sunil Kumar Panda

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1. State of Odisha, …. Opposite Party represented through its Commissioner-cumSecretary to Govt. in Panchayat Raj and DW Department, Bhubaneswar 2. Collector and District Magistrate, Puri

¶7

3. Chief Development Officer -cumExecutive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Puri 4. Block Development Officer, Satyabadi

¶8

Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

21.07.2026

Order No.

01 .

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶14

The Petitioner is the chairman of Satyabadi Panchayat Samiti. It is his second journey of this Court raising a grievance relating to official apathy in providing him file which would enable him to discharge his duties in terms of the Rule 3 of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

(Administration of Affairs) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1987). For convenience of reference, the said Rule 3 of Rules, 1987 is extracted hereunder:-

¶17

“ 3. Inspection of works by the Chairman - All works and schemes undertaken by the Samiti either directly or through the agency of a Grama Panchayat and all the institutions under the control of the Samiti may be inspected and supervised by the Chairman of the Samiti.”

¶18

It is apt to note that similar grievance was agitated before this Court by the Petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No.31401 of 2025 and taking into account the stand of the State that such files will be provided for, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.11.2025 and the submission which weighed with this Court in disposing of the said writ petition in paragraph-2 thereof is extracted hereunder for convenience of reference:-

¶19

“2. This Court, by order dated 13^th November, 2025, had directed the State to take instructions and to respond since it has been alleged by the petitioner that records have not been placed before him by opposite party No.3 and duly processed. Today, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State produced a copy of the letter addressed to the petitioner by opposite party No.3 with an intimation that the files are ready for verification by the petitioner. It is also revealed from the said intimation by letter dated 6^th November, 2025 that two of the files with regard to Antyodaya Gruha Yojna inauguration and BGBO inauguration

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

have been submitted to the petitioner for verification.”

¶22

It is the grievance of the Petitioner that notwithstanding the order, the same malady continues and no files are given for inspection.

¶23

Such submission is opposed by the learned AGA for the State, Mr. Mohanty referring to the letter at Annexure-12 wherein the files which has been detailed for inspection has been stated therein. The said Annexure-12 is culled out hereunder:-

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instruction, submits that though the same has been mentioned in the office order dated 11.12.2025 at Annexure-12, but in effect the files have not provided for which he has again ventilated his grievance in subsequent representations dated 18.12.2025 and 20.01.2026 at Annexures-13 & 14 respectively.

¶26

Considering the competing claims, keeping in view the schematic arrangement of the Rules, 1987 extracted hereinabove, this Court directs that the files in question shall be produced for inspection of the Petitioner in the office of the Collector and District Magistrate, PuriOpposite Party No.2 on 31.07.2026 and 01.08.2026.

¶27

Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to renew his prayer in the event the aforementioned directions of this Court are not complied with.

¶28

Copy of this order along with the writ petition be submitted to the Collector and District Magistrate, PuriOpposite Party No.2 as well as Block Development Officer, Satyabadi, Puri-Opposite Party No.4 by Speed Post, within two days of uploading of this order.

¶29

Copy of this order be made over to the learned counsel for the State enabling him to take necessary follow up action.

¶30

It is needless to state that this Court has not expressed any views regarding the allegation and the stand as taken by the State that the files were in fact provided in terms of the earlier order passed and the

¶31

Page 4 of 5

¶32

present order has been passed to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

¶33