Dr. Mahesh Kumar vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 13 March, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                 WP(C) No. 35252 of 2025
Dr. Mahesh Kumar             .....       Petitioner
                                               Mr. D.P. Nanda, Sr. Advocate
                                                       along with
                                                Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate
                                -versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.             .....             Opposite Parties
                                                   Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
                                              Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
                                                        along with
                                               Ms. K.T. Mudali, Advocate
                                                    (Opp. Party No. 4)
                                               Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
                                                       along with
                                                Ms. P.S. Mohanty, Advocate
                                                     (Opp. Party No. 6)
                    CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                     ORDER

13.03.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. D.P. Nanda, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel, Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. Parties, Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 4 along with Ms. K.T. Mudali, learned counsel and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 6 along with Ms. P.S. Mohanty, learned counsel.

3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order dtd.05.12.2025 so passed by the Odisha Veterinary Council (in short Council) under Annexure-15 raised a preliminary objection with regard to passing of such an order

contending inter alia that Petitioner initially was issued with the certificate by the Council under Annexure-2 on 26.02.2024.

3.1. It is contended that prior to cancellation of such certificate issued by the Council under Annexure-2, provisions contained under Sec. 49 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 r.w. Rule 47 of the Odisha Veterinary Council Rules, 1997 were required to be followed.

3.2. It is contended that in terms of such provisions contained under the Act r.w. the Rules, a statutory notice was issued to the Petitioner on 28.11.2025 under Annexure-14 series. But such a notice was only sent by Speed Post on 03.12.2025 so reflected at Page 64 of the brief and received by the petitioner on 05.12.2025. But the impugned order was passed, cancelling the registration certificate on the very same date i.e.05.12.2015 under Annexure-15.

3.3. It is contended that since Petitioner was never given an opportunity to file his reply to the statutory notice issued under Annexure-14 series on 28.11.2025 and on the date of receipt of the notice, the impugned order was passed, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.

3.4. It is however contended that because of the interim order passed on 10.12.2025, operation of the impugned order has been kept in abeyance. It is accordingly contended that since the statutory provision was never followed prior to cancelling the certificate of the Petitioner vide order dtd.05.12.2025 under Annexure-15, the same requires interference of this Court.

4. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 6 on the other hand contended that prior to issuance of such a statutory notice on 28.11.2025, Petitioner was issued with another

notice on 27.10.2025 under Annexure-12 and a reply was also filed by the Petitioner under Annexure-13. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner had already filed the reply pursuant to the earlier show-cause issued under Annexure-12, taking into account the stand taken in the reply, the issue was decided by the Council with passing of the impugned order under Annexure-15. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. It is also contended that this Court has passed an interim order on 18.02.2026 to the following effect:-

"Interim order passed on 10.12.2025 shall continue till the next date. However, it is observed that during pendency of the Writ Petition, no further action be taken in providing appointment to the Petitioner."

5. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Commission basing on the PWC received by him from the Commission, contended that prior to cancellation of the certificate, provisions contained under Rule 47 of the Rules r.w. Sec. 49 of the Act has not been followed. It is also contended that such a stand has been taken in the PWC, basing on the letter issued by the Govt. in the Fisheries & ARD Department so issued vide letter dtd.10.12.2025. It is accordingly contended that on the face of the admission made by the State-Opp. Party No. 1 regarding non-compliance of the statutory provisions prior to passing of the impugned order, this Court may take note of the same.

6. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also fairly contended that taking into account the notice issued under Annexure- 14 series on 28.11.2025 and the fact that the said notice was received by the Petitioner on 05.12.2025, the impugned order could not have been passed by the Council on 05.12.2025 itself. Not only learned

AGA also admitted the stand of Opp. Party No. 1 in his letter dt.10.12.2025, so relied on by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Commission.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the Council- Opp. Party No. 3, on being satisfied, issued the registration certificate in favour of the Petitioner on 26.02.2024 under Annexure-3. While continuing with the benefit of such certificate, though initially a show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 27.10.2025 under Annexure-12 and a reply was also filed by the Petitioner to the said notice on 27.10.2025 under Annexure-13, but since the Council held that statutory notice has not been issued prior to such cancellation, such a fresh notice as provided under the Statute was issued on 28.11.2025 under Annexure-14 series.

7.1. As found from the documents available under Annexure-14 series, which is not disputed, notice dtd.28.11.2025 was sent to the Petitioner by Speed Post on 03.12.2025, so received by the Petitioner on 05.12.2025. However, it is found that the impugned order cancelling the registration certificate was passed on 05.12.2025 under Annexure-15.

7.2. Since in terms of the statutory notice issued on 28.11.2025 and prior to submission of the reply by the Petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, it is the view of this Court that the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.05.12.2025 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-15 and while quashing the same, this Court directs the Petitioner to file his reply to the statutory notice dtd.28.11.2025 on or before 25th March, 2026. On filing of such reply by the Petitioner,

Opp. Party No. 3 is directed to take a lawful decision on the same by giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the reply.

7.3. However, it is observed that, if no reply will be filed by 25 th March, 2026 as directed, Opp. Party No. 3 will be free to take his own decision. However, appointment of the Petitioner vis-à-vis Private Opp. Party No. 6 so indicated in order dt.18.02.2026, shall depend on the final order to be passed by the Council, so directed.

8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack