Biswamitra Tripathy v. Chief Electoral Officer, Odisha, Khordha

Orissa HC11 May 2026WP(C)/6244/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court Cuttack; WP(C) No.6244 of 2026; Biswamitra Tripathy v. Chief Electoral Officer, Odisha, Home Department and others; order dated 11.5.2026; judge B.P. Routray; petitioner sought service of Annexure-8 notice on opposite party No.5 and action on Annexure-3 complaint; counter by opposite parties 1, 6, 7 seeking further reasonable time as enquiry pending for want of documents from opposite party No.5; opposite party No.5 reply already submitted; writ petition disposed of; enquiry directed to be completed in accordance with law within 6 months of certified copy; no opinion expressed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party No.1 to complete the enquiry in accordance with law, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ¶¶21

Biswamitra Tripathy Vs Chief Electoral Officer, Odisha, Khordha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to opposite party No.1 to complete the enquiry in accordance with law, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether opposite parties No.6 and 7 should be directed to serve a copy of the notice as per Annexure-8 on opposite party No.5, and whether opposite party No.1 should be directed to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint under Annexure-3 within a stipulated time.

¶¶14

Court's answer

Upon hearing all parties and keeping in view the submissions made on behalf of opposite party No.1, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.1 to complete the enquiry in accordance with law, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

The court expressly made clear that it has expressed no opinion on the merits of the contentions of the parties.obiter¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, Cuttack (B.P. Routray, J.), order dated 11.5.2026 in WP(C) No.6244 of 2026 (Biswamitra Tripathy v. Chief Electoral Officer, Odisha, Home Department and others): The petitioner sought directions to opposite parties No.6 and 7 to serve a copy of the notice (Annexure-8) on opposite party No.5, and to opposite party No.1 to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint (Annexure-3) within a stipulated time. Opposite parties No.1, 6 and 7 countered (paragraph 17) that despite due service of notice, opposite party No.5 had not furnished the required documents, the enquiry could not be initiated, and further reasonable time was sought; the other opposite parties filed no counter, and opposite party No.5's counsel stated he had already appeared before opposite party No.1 and submitted his reply. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.1 to complete the enquiry in accordance with law within 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the court expressly expressing no opinion on the merits of the parties' contentions.

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 11-May-2026 18:12:33

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.6244 of 2026

¶4

Biswamitra Tripathy

¶5

…. Petitioner Mr. S. Senapati, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Chief Electoral Officer, Odisha, Home Department and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. G. Tripathy, AGA Mr. S.S. Tripathy, counsel for O.P. No.5 Mr. P. Tejasman on behalf of Mr. G. Agarwal, counsel for O.P. No.2 & 3

¶9

CORAM: SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER 11.5.2026

Order No.

Heard Mr. S. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. Tripathy, learned AGA for State – opposite parties No.1, 6 and 7, Mr. S.S. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.5 and Mr. P. Tejasman, learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 and 3.

¶14

The petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to opposite parties No.6 and 7 to serve a copy of the notice as per Annexure-8 on opposite party No.5, with further direction to opposite party No.1 to take appropriate action on the complaint of the petitioner under Annexure-3 within a stipulated time.

¶15

Opposite parties No.1, 6 and 7 have filed their counter stating at paragraph 17 that opposite party No.1 may be granted further reasonable time to complete the enquiry, in accordance with law. Said paragraph of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-

¶16

“17. That, in view of the facts stated above, it is further humbly submitted that despite due service of

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 11-May-2026 18:12:33

¶19

notice upon the Opposite Party No.5 as evidenced from the records, the said Opposite Party has not furnished the required material facts and documents till date. In absence of the necessary documents, the enquiry could not be initiated. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.l most respectfully seeks some further reasonable time to complete the enquiry in accordance with law.”

¶20

The other opposite parties have not filed their counter. But it is submitted by Mr. Tripathy, on behalf of opposite party No.5 that he has already appeared before opposite party No.1 and submitted his reply.

¶21

Upon hearing all the parties and keeping in view the submissions made on behalf of opposite party No.1, as stated above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.1 to complete the enquiry in accordance with law, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶22

It is made clear that this court has expressed no opinion on the merits of contentions of the parties.

¶23

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶24

M.K.Panda

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Biswamitra Tripathy v. Chief Electoral Officer, Odisha, Khordha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswamitra Tripathy v. Chief Electoral Officer, Odisha, Khordha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.M.,the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,Jajpur Vs Prasanta Mishra @ Prasanta Kumar Mishra

Divisional Manager, M/S. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar Vs Lai Minyaka

Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd, Sundargarh Vs Rashmita Bhoi

Anil Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Madan Sahu Vs State of Odisha

M/S Sabita Agency Vs State of Odisha