Disposed¶20

Biswaraj Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Mar 2026WP(C)/6684/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha High Court writ application disposed; OPDR Act 1962 Section 8 application denying liability pending adjudication; OPDR TMC Case No.01/2025; Section 9 hearing and power to confirm, set aside, modify or vary certificate; certificate debtor petition; Section 9 read with Section 8 consideration directed; delay in Section 8 filing condoned; decision in accordance with law expeditiously; Biswaraj Mohanty v State of Odisha & others; Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo; order dated 12.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of; authority directed to consider the 'certificate debtor' petition denying liability in terms of Section 9 read with Section 8 of the Act and take a decision in accordance with law as expeditiously; any delay in filing the Section 8 application condoned. ¶20

Biswaraj Mohanty Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ application should be kept pending or disposed of, given that the petitioner's Section 8 application denying liability in OPDR TMC Case No.01/2025 is pending adjudication before the appropriate authority under the OPDR Act. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ application pending, as the pending Section 8 petition denying liability in the OPDR proceeding is to be considered by the appropriate authority under Section 9 read with Section 8 of the Act.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The writ application is disposed of with direction that the authority shall consider the petition filed by the 'certificate debtor' denying the liability in terms of Section 9 read with Section 8 and take a decision in accordance with law as expeditiously.

¶20

Key takeaways

Any delay in filing the application under Section 8 is condoned, and the adjudicating authority shall not detain itself on the ground of delay in filing of the application.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2026 — Biswaraj Mohanty v. State of Odisha & others (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, coram Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, order dated 12.03.2026): The petitioner had filed an application under Section 8 of the OPDR Act, 1962 denying liability in the pending proceeding OPDR TMC Case No.01/2025, which remained pending adjudication before the appropriate authority; Section 9 of the Act provides for hearing of such petition, including power to confirm, set aside, modify or vary the certificate. Finding no useful purpose in keeping the writ application pending, the Court disposed of it, directing the authority to consider the 'certificate debtor' petition denying liability in terms of Section 9 read with Section 8 and take a decision in accordance with law as expeditiously; any delay in filing the Section 8 application was condoned and the adjudicating authority was instructed not to detain itself on the ground of delay.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2026

¶3

Biswaraj Mohanty

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S.R. Behera, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & others …. Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. D.N. Lenka, AGA (for O.Ps.)

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

¶10

ORDER

¶11

12.03.2026 (Hybrid Mode)

¶12

Order No.

¶13

01. 1 . The matter was listed yesterday, was heard at some length and was adjourned to enable the learned instructing counsel to obtain instruction to apprise the Court.

¶14

2 . It is submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner in the pending proceeding under the OPDR Act OPDR TMC Case No.01/2025 has filed application U/s.8 of the OPDR Act which is pending adjudication before the appropriate authority. The learned Sr. Advocate also refers to the Section 9 of the OPDR Act, 1962 which provides for hearing and of

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

such petition which includes the power to confirm, set aside, modify, or vary the certificate.

¶17

3. In accordance with the instruction received by the learned instructing counsel Mr. Behera, who is conducting the matter before the authority, he files memo of date indicating that the petition in terms of Section 8 denying the liability which is pending adjudication.

¶18

The memo is taken on record. Scanned copy be updated. Copy of the memo is also served on the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶19

4. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending when in the OPDR proceeding the matter is to be considered by the appropriate authority U/s.9 read with Section 8 of the Act.

¶20

5. Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of directing that the authority shall consider the petition filed by the ‘certificate debtor’ denying the liability in terms of Section 9 read with Section 8 and take a decision in accordance with law as expeditiously.

¶21

If there has been any delay in filing the application U/s.8 the same is condoned. The adjudicating authority shall not detain itself on the ground of delay in filing of application.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENAReason: Authentication (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Location: OHCDate: 19-Mar-2026 16:18:43 Judge Radha

¶24

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Biswaraj Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswaraj Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bramhananda Nayak Vs Jhili Swain

Mausumi Behera Vs Tarakanta Das

Prafulla Kumar Mishra Vs Annapurna Mishra

Gunanidhi Jena Vs Annapurna Jena

Sangeeta Maharana Vs Susanta Ku.Sahu

Natabara Mallick Vs Basanti Kanhar@Mallick