Orissa High Court
Sanjukta Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 18 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.6317 of 2025
Sanjukta Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Palit, Sr.Adv
alon with Mr. S.
Mohanty, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
Mr. M. Das, Adv.(for
Intervenor)
COROM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
18.03.2025
Order
No
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. Palit, learned Sr. Counsel appearing
for the Petitioner along with Mr. S. Mohanty, learned
counsel and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate along with Mr. M. Das, learned counsel for
the Intervenor-Petitioner
3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that Petitioner who happens to be the
Sarpanch of Gramanandipur Gram Panchayat in the
district of Jajpur, has been placed under suspension
vide order dt.19.02.2025 issued by Opp. Party No.1
under Annexure-1. Petitioner has been so placed
// 2 //
under suspension in exercise of the power conferred
under Section 115(3) of the Orissa Gram Panchayats
Act, 1964.
4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
vehemently contended that such an order of
suspension could not have been passed taking into
account the alleged irregularities committed by the
Petitioner in her previous term. It is contended that
basing on any irregularities committed by the Petitioner
in her earlier term as Sarpanch of the Grama
Panchayat, Petitioner could not have been placed under
suspension. It is contended that such an action in
placing the Petitioner under suspension is contrary to
the decision of this Court in the case of Subash
Chandra Jena Vs. State of Orissa and Others, AIR
1995 Ori 104. It is accordingly contended that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
contended that if in view of the decision relied on by
the learned Sr. Counsel, the order of suspension is not
legal and justified, let the Petitioner make an
appropriate application seeking withdrawal/revocation
of suspension of the order dt.19.02.2025.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Intervenor-Petitioner has no serious objection to the
// 3 //
course of action proposed by the learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court while
disposing the Writ Petition grants liberty to the
Petitioner to move an appropriate application seeking
revocation/cancellation of the order of suspension
passed on 19.02.2025 under Annexure-1.
7.1. It is observed that if any such application is
moved within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of
receipt of this order, Opp. Party No.1 shall take a lawful
decision on the same within a further period of four (4)
weeks.
7.2. It is further observed that relevancy and effect of
the judgment in the case of Subash Chandra Jena be
taken into consideration, if it is applicable to the facts
of the Petitioner's case.
7.3. Petitioner is directed to provide a copy of this
order along with the judgment in the case of Subash
Chandra Jena before Opp. Party No.1 for compliance.
The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Sangita
Date: 21-Mar-2025 18:16:16
