Disposed¶25

Sabitri Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Feb 2026WP(C)/2951/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Bhapur Panchayat Samiti; Chairperson-cum-Executive Authority; Block Development Officer; Section 19, Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959; functional primacy; schematic arrangement; impasse; prematurity; Collector & District Magistrate, Nayagarh; Annexure-5 dated 25.11.2025; memo No.13-BHP-25; opportunity of hearing; four weeks; W.P.(C) No. 2951 of 2026; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice V. Narasingh; order dated 11.02.2026; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Collector and District Magistrate (OP-2) directed to take a decision on Annexure-5 (submitted 25.11.2025) within four weeks from receipt/production of the copy of the order along with the writ petition, after giving the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing; the decisions so taken to be communicated. ¶25

Sabitri Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, Chairperson-cum-Executive Authority of Bhapur Panchayat Samiti, notwithstanding Section 19 of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, is not being allowed to function as per the schematic arrangement of the Act giving her functional primacy over the Block Development Officer, so that the matter merits interference. +1 more

¶18

Ratio / Principle

On evaluation of the rival submissions, the interest of justice would be subserved by directing the Collector and District Magistrate (OP-2) to take a decision in respect of Annexure-5, stated to have been submitted to him on 25.11.2025.

¶20

Key takeaways

The decision on Annexure-5 is to be taken within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order along with the writ petition, after giving the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing.ratio¶22
The decisions so taken by the Collector and District Magistrate shall be communicated.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chairperson-cum-Executive Authority of Bhapur Panchayat Samiti (Nayagarh) alleged that, despite Section 19 of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, the Block Development Officer's conduct denied her functional primacy and created an impasse preventing her from serving the people. The State urged prematurity, pointing to her un-pursued representation (Annexure-5 dated 25.11.2025) to the Collector & District Magistrate, Nayagarh, a copy whereof had been endorsed to the BDO under memo No.13-BHP-25. Without adjudicating the statutory-primacy claim itself, Justice V. Narasingh disposed of the writ petition by directing the Collector & District Magistrate to take a decision on Annexure-5 within four weeks of receipt/production of the copy of the order along with the writ petition, after affording the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and to communicate the decisions so taken.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 2951 of 2026

¶3

Sabitri Pradhan

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S. Polai, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

1. State of Odisha, …. Opposite Parties represented through its Commissionercum-Secretary, Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Department, Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, Khordha

¶8

2. The Collector & District Magistrate, Nayagarh

¶9

3. The Block Development Officer, Bhapur Block, Nayagarh

¶10

Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

11.02.2026

Order No.

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

¶16

The Petitioner is the Chairperson-cumExecutive Authority of Bhapur Panchayat Samiti. It is her grievance that notwithstanding the provisions as

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

contained in Section 19 of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, she is not being allowed to function as per the schematic arrangement of the Act which according to the learned counsel for the Petitioner gives her functional primacy over the Block Development Officer.

¶19

It is stated that because of the impasse created by the Block Development Officer, the Petitioner is not able to serve the people and by such action, the Block Development Officer-Opposite Party No.3 is also violating the statutory provisions. Hence, the matter merits interference.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State submits that the petition is premature in as much as ventilating her grievance the Petitioner has moved the Collector and District Magistrate-Opposite Party No.2 vide Annexure-5 dated 25.11.2025 and without pursuing the same, the Petitioner has rushed to this Court. 5. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that since her legal rights are affected. And, challenging inaction, she has, no other alternative but to approach this Court. 6. On evaluation of the rival submissions, in the considered view of this Court the interest of justice would be subserved in directing the Collector and District Magistrate-Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision in respect of Annexure-5 which is stated to have been submitted to him on 25.11.2025, within a

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order along with the writ petition after giving the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

¶23

And, it is seen that the copy thereof has been endorsed to the Block Development Officer-Opposite Party No.3 under memo No.13-BHP-25.

¶24