Duryodhan Malik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Jan 2026WP(C)/669/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

OPDR Act 1962; Section 60 appeal; Section 27 proviso (sale set aside); certificate case; public demand recovery; Sub Collector; Mini Truck loan default; vehicle seizure; demand notice dated 26.09.2025; withdrawal of writ petition to avail statutory remedy; exclusion of writ-petition pendency period in computing delay; stay of execution conditions (fifty percentum payment); Odisha Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Finance Co-operative Corporation Ltd.; State of Odisha; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo; WP(C) No. 669 of 2026; disposed of 20.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the writ petition to pursue appeal under section 60 of the OPDR Act, 1962; appellate authority to exclude the writ-petition pendency period while computing delay, if any, in filing such appeal. ¶¶29

Duryodhan Malik Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the initiation of certificate cases before the Sub Collector (O.P. No.2) and the recovery notice dated 26.09.2025 under the OPDR Act, arising from default on the Mini Truck loan from O.P. No.4, can be sustained against the petitioner. +1 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

The petitioner was allowed to withdraw the writ petition in order to pursue the statutory appeal under section 60 of the OPDR Act, 1962; the writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner files an appeal under section 60 of the OPDR Act, the appellate authority shall treat the pendency of the writ petition as a bona fide reason and exclude the period of such pendency while calculating any delay in filing the appeal.

¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WP(C) No. 669 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, J.) by Duryodhan Malik challenged the initiation of certificate cases before the Sub Collector (O.P. No.2) and the notice dated 26.09.2025 issued under the OPDR Act by the Odisha Public Demand Recovery authority, following alleged default on a Mini Truck loan availed from O.P. No.4 (Odisha Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Finance Co-operative Corporation Ltd.), seizure of the vehicle and raising of demand. Learned AGA pointed to the statutory appeal provision in section 60 of the OPDR Act (text reproduced, including the proviso barring appeal from orders under Section 27 and the fifty-percentum precondition to stay of execution). Counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition to pursue the statutory appeal under section 60 of the OPDR Act, 1962. Held, the writ petition is disposed of on such withdrawal, with a direction that if an appeal is filed under section 60, the appellate authority shall consider the pendency of the writ petition as a bona fide reason and exclude the period of pendency while calculating any delay in filing the appeal.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 669 of 2026

¶2

Duryodhan Malik …. Petitioner Mr. L. Sarangi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties

¶3

…. Opp. Parties Mr. D. Lenka, AGA For the O.Ps.1 to 3

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

¶6

ORDER

¶7

20.01.2026

¶8

Order No. Hybrid Mode

¶9

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the opposite parties 1 to 3. In view of the order that is going to be passed, no notice is issued to O.P. No.4.

¶10

2. The petitioner by filing the petition has challenged the initiation of certificate cases before the authority i.e. SubCollector O.P. N.2.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased a Mini Truck by availing loan from the O.P. No.4Odisha Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Finance Co-operative Corporation Ltd. The said loan is alleged to have not been serviced and the petitioner has defaulted in repaying the loan. Thereafter the vehicle was seized by the loan disbursing corporation-O.P. No.4 and a demand was raised.

¶12

Apparently a proceeding was initiated before the Odisha Public Demand Recovery as prescribed in the statute for

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

recovery of the due amount. Notice from the said authority under OPDR Act dated 26.09.2025 was issued which is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceeding.

¶15

3. On being asked whether the petitioner has challenged the original recovery notice or seizure of the vehicle or any other proceeding has been initiated challenging the demand, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he has no instructions.

¶16

4. Learned AGA submits that there is an appeal provision contained in OPDR Act under section 60. The said sections reproduced herein :

¶17

60. Appeal- (1) An appeal from any original order made under this Act shall lie –

¶18

(a) if the order was made by a Certificate Officer below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate, to the Additional District Magistrate; (b) if the order was made by an Additional District Magistrate, to the Collector;

¶19

(b) if the order was made by an Additional District

¶20

(c) if the order was made by a Collector to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner:

¶21

Provided that no appeal shall lie from an order setting aside a sale on an application made under Section 27.

¶22

(2) Every such appeal shall be presented within thirty days from the date of the order appealed against.

¶23

(3) Pending the decision of any appeal, execution may be stayed if the appellate authority so directs, but not otherwise.

¶24

Provided that the appellate authority shall not direct stay of execution in any case, unless-

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

(a) the certificate-debtor has paid at least fifty percentum of the total amount due under the certificate to the certificate officer, whether or not under protest made in writing at the time of payment, and produces a certificate from the certificate officer showing such payment to have been made; or

¶27

(b) After considering the evidence adduced, he has prima facie reasons to believe on the plea of the certificate-debtor that the public demand said to be due from him under the certificate has, in fact, been paid.

¶28

5. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition so that the petitioner would pursue remedy of appeal as available under statute OPDR Act, 1962.

¶29

6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

If the petitioner files appeal under section 60 of the OPDR Act and there is any delay in filing the appeal, the appellate authority shall consider pendency of the writ petition as a bona fide reason and the period of pendency of the writ petition shall be excluded while calculating period of delay if any.

¶31

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge

¶32

dutta

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 21-Jan-2026 20:33:47

¶35

Page 3 of 3

Duryodhan Malik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duryodhan Malik 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

Akash Mitra Vs Anjelika Mitra

Shantidevi Kejriwal Vs Gopal Ch.Kejriwal

Pallavi Khuntia Vs Amrit Kumar

Arun Kumar @ Barik Vs Collector Cum Dist.Magistrate, Puri

Sudhir @ Sudhir Kumar Thakur Vs Chhabi Thakur

Dillip Kumar Dash Vs Suprava Dash