Disposed¶25

Susila Mallick v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Feb 2026WP(C)/3906/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court (V. Narasingh, J.), W.P.(C) No. 3906 of 2026, disposed 05.02.2026: elected Sarpanch of Sidhapur Gram Panchayat challenges BDO Sorada communication (Annexure-10); representation pending before Opposite Party No.4 to be disposed of within four weeks with opportunity of hearing; Court expresses no view on veracity; AGA argued no cause of action; writ disposed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Opposite Party No.4 directed to dispose of the Petitioner's representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after giving her an opportunity of hearing; no opinion expressed on the veracity of the Petitioner's stand. ¶25

Susila Mallick Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 3906 of 2026

¶3

Susila Mallick

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. J. Bhuyan, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

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

¶8

2. The Collector, Ganjam, At/Po./P.S.Chatrapur, DistrictGanjam

¶9

3. The Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar, Ganjam

¶10

4. The Block Development Officer, Sorada, Ganjam

¶11

5. Smt. Tarani Mallick

¶12

Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA

¶13

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

05.02.2026

Order No.

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

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

The Petitioner being the elected Sarpanch of Sidhapur Gram Panchayat under Sorada Block has assailed the communication issued to him by the Block Development Officer-Opposite Party No.4 vide Annexure-10. The said communication is extracted hereunder;

¶20

It is stated that canvassing his stand point relating to the said Annexure, the Petitioner has made a representation to the Opposite Party No.4. Alleging inaction in the matter of consideration of such representation, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that ex-facie there is no cause of action to maintain the Writ Petition.

¶23

On consideration of rival submissions, the Opposite Party No.4 is called upon to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks hence after giving her an opportunity of hearing.

¶24

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the veracity of the stand of the Petitioner as borne out from the representation.

¶25