Orissa High Court
Biswaranjan Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite … on 8 January, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.29872 of 2024
along with
W.P.(C) No.18920 of 2024
(In the matters of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Biswaranjan Mohanty .... Petitioner(s)
(In both the Writ Petitions)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Sr. Adv.
along with associates
Mr. Milan Kanungo, Sr. Adv.
along with associates
Mr.Sarada Prasanna Sarangi, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General
along with Mr.Sonak Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING: -16.12.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -08.01.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in both the above-
mentioned Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court felt it
Page 1 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
apposite to deal with the W.P.(C) No.29872 of 2014 as the leading case
for proper adjudication of both the cases.
2. In W.P.(C) No.29872 of 2024, the petitioner is challenging the notice
dated 19.11.2024 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative
Societies, Khurda division, disqualifying the petitioner under Section
28(3)(p) of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, from the Primary
Society, Capital Cooperative Housing Limited.
3. The petitioner has also challenged the notice dated 31.07.2024, issued
under Section 32(7) of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962,
which resulted in the suspension of the Committee of Management of
the Apex Society, Odisha Cooperative Housing Corporation Limited,
Bhubaneswar in W.P.(C) No. 18920 of 2024.
4. Since both the cases are interlinked in terms of the subject matter and
prayer, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 5. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner was elected as the President of the Primary Society,
Capital Cooperative Housing Limited, following the scrutiny of
candidatures and voting on 13.07.2022.
(ii) After assuming the role of President of Capital Cooperative Housing
Limited, the petitioner contested for the position of Chairman of the
Apex Society, Odisha Cooperative Housing Corporation Limited.
(iii) On 10.10.2022, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code at Laxmisagar Police Station,
Page 2 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
Bhubaneswar, alleging that the petitioner had provided false
information to secure the position of President of the Capital
Cooperative Housing Limited. The FIR, registered as P.S. Case No.
361/2023, corresponds to CT Case No. 6149/2022, which is currently
pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (III) in Bhubaneswar.
(iv) The petitioner filed CRLMP No.2205 of 2023 to quash the FIR. This
Court, having considered the facts, stayed any coercive action pending
the resolution of the matter.
(v) On 08.02.2023/ an objection was raised against the petitioner’s eligibility
for the position of Chairman of Odisha Cooperative Housing
Corporation under Section 28(3)(p) of the Odisha Cooperative Societies
Act, 1962. After due consideration, the Election Officer upheld the
petitioner’s candidature as valid.
(vi) Challenging the Election Officer’s adjudication/ the complainant
preferred an election petition before the Cooperative Tribunal under
Section 67B. However, the complainant voluntarily withdrew the
petition.
(vii) By order dated 31.07.2024, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies
suspended the petitioner from the position of President of the Odisha
Cooperative Housing Corporation Limited, citing a violation of Section
28(3)(p) based on the final report and chargesheet in P.S. Case No. 361
at Laxmisagar Police Station, Bhubaneswar. The Committee of
Management of the Corporation was also suspended by the same order,
on allegations of causing undue financial harassment to members,
inaction in the handing over of homes in the Dhauli Heights Project,
Page 3 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
manhandling in committee meetings, illegal sale of land, and non-
cooperation among committee members. However, this Court stayed
the petitioner’s suspension on 13.08.2024.
(viii) Subsequently, based on a joint enquiry report submitted by the
committee comprising the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies
(Consumer), the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Credit), and
the Joint AGCS, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued an
order dated 19.11.2024 disqualifying the petitioner from the Capital
Cooperative Housing Limited on the ground of having more than two
children.
(ix) Aggrieved by this disqualification from the position of President,
Capital Cooperative Housing Limited and Chairman, Odisha
Cooperative Housing Corporation Limited, the petitioner in this writ
petition, is challenging by way of this Court’s intervention.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner submitted that the order dated 19.11.2024 issued by the
Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies is without jurisdiction. While
Section 28(3)(p) of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, addresses
disqualification for having more than two children, the authority to
adjudicate such disqualification rests exclusively with the Committee of
Management and the General Body of Members, not with the Registrar
or Deputy Registrar.
Page 4 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
(ii) The petitioner contended that the assertion of automatic disqualification
is legally unsustainable, as such disqualification applies only where
there are no disputed facts. In the present case, the petitioner has
consistently disputed the claim of having more than two children. To
buttress this argument, the petitioner relied on the decisions of Nazir
Ahmad v. King Emperor,1 Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala,2 and
Hussein Ghadially v. State of Gujarat.3
(iii) The petitioner submitted that the order dated 19.11.2024 is in direct
contravention of Sections 68 and 70 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies
Act, 1962, which explicitly bar the Registrar or Deputy Registrar from
adjudicating election-related disputes. Section 68 of the Odisha
Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, mandates that disputes concerning the
constitution, management, or business of a cooperative society must be
referred to arbitration, except in cases falling within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Cooperative Tribunal. Additionally, Section 67-B of
the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, specifically governs election
disputes/ making it clear that controversies regarding the petitioner’s
eligibility can only be adjudicated by the Cooperative Tribunal.
(iv) The petitioner argued that the order dated 19.11.2024 is non-est in law,
as it was passed in violation of the interim orders of this Court. The
Registrar of Cooperative Societies had suspended the petitioner on
31.07.2024, alleging a violation of Section 28(3)(p) of the Odisha
Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, based on the claim of having more than
1
1936 SCC OnLine PC 41
2
(1999) 3 SCC 422
3
(2014) 8 SCC 425
Page 5 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
two children. The suspension was challenged in Writ Petition (C) No.
18920 of 2024, wherein this Court, by order dated 13.08.2024, stayed the
suspension. Despite the subsistence of the said interim protection, the
Registrar proceeded with an enquiry into the same allegations and
directed the Deputy Registrar to disqualify the petitioner. These actions
were undertaken in blatant disregard of the interim relief granted by
this Court, thereby rendering the impugned order a nullity in law.
Actions taken in contravention of subsisting interim orders warrant the
restoration of the status quo ante to preserve the authority of the Court
and uphold the sanctity of its orders.
(v) The petitioner submitted that reliance on the charge-sheet in
Laxmisagar P.S. Case No. 361, dated 10.10.2022, to conclude that the
petitioner has more than two children is legally untenable. The criminal
proceedings, including the charge-sheet, have been challenged by the
petitioner in CRLMC No.4403 of 2024, and this Court, by its order dated
26.11.2024, stayed further proceedings in the case. By issuing the
impugned order, the Deputy Registrar effectively pronounced the
petitioner guilty without a trial, rendering such reliance grossly
improper and illegal.
(vi) The petitioner contended that the Joint Inquiry Report of the Joint
Registrar of Cooperative Societies is legally flawed. The enquiry,
initiated under Section 65 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962,
pertains solely to the constitution, working, and financial condition of a
society. The present complaint is unrelated to these matters. Moreover,
Page 6 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
the inquiry was initiated based on a complaint by one Sri Jay Narayan
Mishra, who lacks locus standi, as he is not a member of the society.
(vii) The petitioner further contended that the revisionary power under
Section 112 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act does not provide an
effective remedy in this case. While the Registrar is empowered to
revise any order on his own motion or upon application, the enquiry
initiated by the Registrar, in contravention of the interim orders of this
Court, undermines the revision process. The lack of bona fide intent and
the deliberate disregard for binding interim orders demonstrate that the
revisionary remedy is neither adequate nor efficacious due to the
procedural deficiencies in the enquiry process itself.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
7. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) Section 112(1) of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, mandates
that aggrieved parties must seek redress through a revision petition to
the Registrar or Additional Registrar, rather than invoking the writ
jurisdiction of this Court. Furthermore, the order passed under Section
28(3)(p) of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 is explicitly non-
appealable under Section 109 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act,
1962, thereby barring the petitioner from invoking judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
(ii) The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies was lawfully empowered
to issue the impugned intimation under Section 28(3)(p) of the Odisha
Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, by virtue of the Government of
Page 7 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
Odisha’s Notification No. 19992/Coop. dated 21.09.1999. The petitioner
was afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the issuance
of the intimation, which was carried out in accordance with established
legal procedures and is therefore beyond reproach.
(iii) The petitioner has intentionally concealed the fact of having more than
two children, which constitutes a statutory disqualification under
Section 28(3)(p) of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, thereby
rendering him ineligible to hold any position in the management of a
cooperative society. The petitioner’s denial of the existence of a third
child and submission of false documents, including the Aadhaar card of
Bibhunandan Mohanty, amount to deliberate misrepresentation. The
fact that the petitioner has three children has been conclusively
established through police investigation (PS Case No. 361/2022) and the
charge-sheet, which unequivocally demonstrate that the petitioner
provided false information in his nomination papers.
(iv) The Registrar, Birth and Death, Health Officer (BMC), Bhubaneswar
also certified that Biswaranjan Mohanty is the natural born father of
Bibhunandan Mohanty. The Registrar, Birth and Death, Health Officer
(BMC), Bhubaneswar had also informed to the JRCS (Consumer)
regarding the genuineness of birth certificate vide No.9389/2007 issued
on 31.01.2023. The said authority further clarified that the present Writ
Petitioner had applied for correction of father’s name on 24.01.2023 and
the correction of father’s name of Bibhunandan Mohanty has been done
as per his application from Biswaranjan Mohanty to Biswajit Mohanty @
Biswaranjan Mohanty. Accordingly, 2nd certificate was issued on
Page 8 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
04.03.2023. The very act of changing of father’s name of Bibhunandan
Mohanty from Biswaranjan Mohanty to Biswajit Mohanty @
Biswaranjan Mohanty clearly raised doubt regarding the genuineness of
the TC relied by the present Writ Petitioner.
(v) The interim order passed in I.A. No.10194/2024 arising out of W.P.(C)
No.18920/2024 was explicitly confined to the petitioner in that case.
Consequently/ the petitioner’s reliance on the pendency of related
matters is not only factually erroneous but also misleading, as the
interim relief granted does not extend to the present proceedings. It was
passed in a different proceeding.
IV. EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL MATRIX:
8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and duly perused the
materials placed on record.
9. It is well settled that ordinarily, a writ petition should not be
entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law.
The Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of
Trademarks, Mumbai4 observed that, under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the High Court has discretion to entertain or refuse writ
petitions, usually declining when an effective alternative remedy exists.
However, exceptions include cases involving the enforcement of
Fundamental Rights, violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or
challenges to the vires of a statute. The relevant portion is produced
hereinbelow:
4
(1998) 8 SCC 1
Page 9 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57“15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court,
having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to
entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High
Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which
is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the
High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But
the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court
not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely,
where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of
any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a
violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order
or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of
an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this
point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we
would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the
constitutional law as they still hold the field.”
10. In the same vein, the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v.
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors5 observed as hereinunder:
“27. The principles of law which emerge are that:
27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue
writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of
fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well.27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ
petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the
High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available
to the aggrieved person.
27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where :
(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a
fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b)
there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice;
(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or
(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.
5
2021 SCC OnLine SC 334
Page 10 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High
Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in
an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should
not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is
provided by law.
27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or
liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory
remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article
226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory
remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.
27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the
High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ
petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view
that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its
writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered
with.”
11. To that end, it is essential to highlight Section 28(3)(p) of the Odisha
Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, which outlines the disqualification
criteria for a member or office-bearer of a cooperative society. The
relevant provision reads as follows:
“(3) No individual shall, whether by himself or as a
representative of the Society, be eligible for being chosen or for
continuing as a member or [the President or as the Vice-
President, if any] of the Committee of a Society, if he (p) has
more than two children Provided that nothing in this clause
shall apply to a person who has more than two children as on
the 1st day of January, 1995, or as the case may be, within a
period of one year of the said date, unless such person begets
an additional child after the said period of one year.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Page 11 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
12. A plain reading of Section 28(3)(p) clearly indicates that any individual
with more than two children incurs automatic disqualification, ceasing
to be a member or office-bearer of the Committee of the society. The
relevant portion is cited hereinbelow:
“(3) No individual shall, whether by himself or as a
representative of the society, be eligible for being chosen or for
continuing as a member or [the President or as the Vice-
President, if any,] of the Committee of a society, if he:-
……
[(p) has more than two children :
_ Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a person
who has more than two children as on the 1st day of January,
1995 or, as the case may be, within a period of one year of the
said date, unless such person begets an additional child after
the said period of one year.]”
13. The provision unequivocally establishes that an individual is
disqualified from holding certain positions within a society if they have
more than two children, with clear exceptions outlined. The language of
the clause is explicit and leaves no room for interpretation, stating that
the disqualification applies automatically unless the individual falls
within the stipulated exceptions, such as having more than two children
prior to January 1, 1995, or within one year thereafter, provided no
additional child is born beyond that period. Since the provision is self-
executing, there is no requirement for further clarification or orders
from any authority for its enforcement.
Page 12 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
14. In order to further elucidate this point, the spirit of Section 28(3-aa) of
the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act reinforces that disqualification is
automatic, as the member or president shall cease to hold his office as
such with effect from the date that he incurs such disqualification. The
concerned sub-section is produced hereinbelow:
“28.
……
3-aa) Any individual continuing as a member or President of
the Committee whether by himself or as a representative of
another Society, incurring any of the disqualifications specified
in sub-section (3), or sub-section (14) shall cease to hold his
office as such with effect from the date he incurs such
disqualification.”
15. It is noted that in the present case, the notice dated 09.11.2024 issued by
the Deputy Registrar does not constitute an order of disqualification in
itself but rather acknowledges the automatic disqualification that arises
as a consequence of the petitioner having more than two children.
Further, the issue of suspension and management of the committee of a
cooperative society is governed by Section 32(7) of the Odisha
Cooperative Societies Act, which provides the Registrar with the
authority to suspend the committee in cases where its actions are
prejudicial to the interests of the society or its members or where the
committee has committed serious irregularities or illegality.
16. Additionally, Section 112 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act
provides for the power of revision by the Registrar or Additional
Page 13 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
Registrar, ensuring a further layer of administrative scrutiny in cases
involving disputes related to disqualification or suspension.
17. A preliminary reading of the above provisions indicates that the Odisha
Cooperative Societies Act contemplates both disqualification and
suspension of individuals as members and office-bearers under various
circumstances to ensure the proper functioning of cooperative societies.
18. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any grounds
that would warrant intervention by this Court. There has been no
violation of the principles of natural justice, nor has the petitioner
shown that the disqualification was arbitrary.
19. The notice issued by the Deputy Registrar afforded the petitioner an
opportunity to be heard. If aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner
retains the liberty to invoke the dispute resolution mechanism under
Section 68 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act. However, in light of
the temporary inoperability of the Cooperative Societies Tribunal, this
Court shall exercise its jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter and
adjudicate upon it on merits.
20. The present case is straightforward, devoid of complex factual
intricacies requiring deep investigation. Letter No. 489 dated 22.08.2024,
issued by the Registrar of Births & Deaths, Health Officer, Bhubaneswar
Municipal Corporation, unequivocally establishes that the petitioner
has three children, with the youngest born in 2007. This fact is further
corroborated by the Birth Certificate of Bibhunandan Mohanty (Issue
No. 1717/2023), which clearly identifies him as the petitioner’s child.
Page 14 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
21. The petitioner’s disqualification is/ therefore/ both necessary and legally
mandated under the applicable provisions. The petitioner’s failure to
disclose this material fact during his candidature, coupled with an
attempt to refute it through fraudulent means, demonstrates a clear
intention to deceive. Such conduct not only contravenes statutory
provisions but also undermines the sanctity of the electoral process.
22. In Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another,6 the
Supreme Court, considering the issue regarding concealment of facts
before the Court, observed that The court is not a playground for
trivialities or frivolous disputes; it is a solemn forum for the
administration of justice. The court opined as under:
“19. The second limb of the submission is whether in the
obtaining factual matrix, the order passed by the High Court
discharging the accused-respondent is justified in law. We
have clearly stated that though the respondent was fully aware
about the fact that charges had been framed against him by the
learned trial Judge, yet he did not bring the same to the notice
of the revisional court hearing the revision against the order
taking cognizance. It is a clear case of suppression. It was
within the special knowledge of the accused. Anyone who takes
recourse to method of suppression in a court of law, is, in
actuality, playing fraud with the court, and the maxim
supressio veri, expression faisi , i.e., suppression of the truth is
equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. We are
compelled to say so as there has been a calculated concealment
of the fact before the revisional court. It can be stated with
certitude that the accused- respondent tried to gain advantage
by such factual suppression. The fraudulent intention is writ
large. In fact, he has shown his courage of ignorance and tried
to playpossum.
6
(2013) 9 SCC 199
Page 15 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
20. The High Court, as we have seen, applied the principle “when
infrastructure collapses, the superstructure is bound to collapse”.
However, as the order has been obtained by practising fraud and
suppressing material fact before a court of law to gain advantage,
the said order cannot be allowed to stand.”
23. This Court firmly holds that such actions warrant disqualification, and
no judicial intervention is justified to circumvent the lawful
consequences of the petitioner’s misrepresentation. Integrity of the law
is paramount, and this Court shall allow the law to take its course
without interference.
24. Next, the petitioner has raised an issue of removal from the Capital
Cooperative Housing Limited, alleging a violation of the stay granted in
W.P.(C) No. 18920 of 2024. However, it is noted that the entire
committee was suspended due to financial irregularities in the same
writ petition. While the petitioner’s case was part of the suspension, the
stay granted therein was explicitly confined to the petitioner under the
Odisha Cooperative Societies Act and cannot be construed as extending
to the suspension from the Capital Cooperative Housing Limited. It was
not a blanket stay granted to the Petitioner which would be applicable
to all the proceedings. Hence, this point suffers from great infirmity and
interference by the court is unwarranted.
V. CONCLUSION:
25. In light of the foregoing, the Petitioner’s challenge to the notice issued
by the Deputy Registrar disqualifying him under Section 28(3)(p) of the
Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 lacks merit. The Petitioner has
Page 16 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Jan-2025 17:30:57
failed to demonstrate any grounds that would warrant the intervention
of this Court.
26. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.29872 of 2024 is dismissed.
27. Consequently, W.P.(C) No.18920 of 2024 is dismissed in accordance
with the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.29872 of 2024.
28. Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the above-mentioned Writ
Petitions, stands vacated.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 8th January, 2025/
Page 17 of 17
[ad_1]
Source link