Susanta Pradhan vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties
2026 Latest Caselaw 1143 Ori

Orissa High Court

Susanta Pradhan vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 9 February, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                    W.P.(C) No.31010 of 2024

        Susanta Pradhan                   ....         Petitioner
                                           Mr. S. Dash, Advocate
                               -versus-

       1. State of Odisha                 ....   Opposite Parties
        represented through
       its Principal Secretary,
        Department of
       Housing & Urban
        Development, Khurda
       2. The Additional Secretary
        to Govt. and Additional
        Mission Director, SBM,
        Department of Housing &
        UrbanDevelopment,
        Bhubaneswar
       3. Projects (CED), NI/78,
        IRC Village, Nayapalli,
        Bhubaneswar
       4. The Collector, Baragarh
       5. The Executive Officer,
        Baragarh Municipality,
       Office, Baragarh
                                           Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA
                                      Mr. J.K. Panda, Advocate
                                                    (O.P. No.5)

                     CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
                                 ORDER

09.02.2026 Order No.

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite party No.5.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that services of the Petitioner were utilized as Junior Sanitation Expert under the Project implementation Unit of Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban) under Package-II.

3. It is stated that in terms of his engagement letter at Annexure-2, the Petitioner joined on 19.03.2020 and discharged his duties to the best of his abilities without any demur from any quarter.

4. It is submitted that when matter stood thus the Petitioner received the impugned communication at Annexure-6 addressed to him and two others wherein an amount of Rs.22,918/- was sought to be recovered from the Petitioner allegedly towards the differential amount towards user fees.

5. For convenience of reference the said annexure is extracted hereunder:-

6. On a bare perusal, it is seen that the said recovery is stated to have been effected on account of the finding of the District Level Enquiry Committee.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner on instruction that though admittedly the communication hasresulted in civil consequences but no opportunity whatsoever was ever afforded nor the copy of the District Level Enquiry Committee was given to the Petitioner so as to enable him to put forth his grievance. Asserting that the communication issued is ex facie arbitrary, the intervention of this Court is sought.

8. The relief sought for is extracted hereunder:-

xxx xxx xxx "It is therefore prayed that, your Lordship may be graciously pleased to admit the writ application, issue Rule Nisi calling upon-the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why : -

(i) the letter No. 2194 dated 24.09.2024 vide Annexure- 6 issued by the Executive Officer, Baragarh Municipality - Opp.party No.5 shall not be quashed ;

(ii) if the Opposite parties failed to show cause or shown insufficient cause, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased made the Rule NISI absolute and allow this writ petition with cost;

And/or to pass such other order/ orders, direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court deems just, fit, equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

xxx xxx xxx

9. Mr. Panda, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.5 submits that the dispute comes within the realm of disputed questions of fact. Hence, the writ petition ought not to be entertained.

It is also submitted that the Petitioner is not remediless.

10. Admittedly on the basis of the finding of the District Level Enquiry Committee the impugned recovery was directed to the tune of Rs.22,918/- and the Petitioner was never provided a copy of such enquiry report.

Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 is also not instructed to submit that such copies were made available to the Petitioner.

11. Considering the rival submissions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with the direction that a copy of the proceeding from which the impugned order directing recovery has emanated be supplied to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks hence and on such receipt the Petitioner shall submit his

response within a period of four weeks and on receiving the response of the Petitioner it shall be open for the authorities to pass orders in accordance with law.

12. The impugned recovery so far as the Petitioner is concerned is hereby set aside.

13. It is needless to state that this order shall not have any effect so far as Mr. Debananda Rana, Sanitary Expert whose name figures in Annexure-6, extracted hereinabove is concerned. Since in respect of Partha Sarathi Sethi by order dated 27.01.2026 in W.P.(C) No.30909 of 2024 similar order has been passed.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

Ayesha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack