IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4151 of 2007 CNR No.ODHC010188712007 Sridhar Prasad Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Orissa State Power Loom Servicing Cooperative Societies Ltd. and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. R.K. Nayak, Advocate for O.P. No.1 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 19.08.2026 49. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Pursuant to order dated 30.07.2026, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.1 produced the Audit Report which is the subject matter of dispute in the present Writ Petition in Court. The same be kept in record. Learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.1 fairly contended that the last such Audit Report in question was prepared by the Auditor on 26.06.1995. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioner most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the writ, issue a writ or direction in the nature certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the judgement dtd.26.4.2006 passed by the Liquidator, Orissa State Power Loom Servicing Cooperative Societies Ltd. in Dispute Case No.1 of 2000 under annexure-3 and also the judgement dtd.11.10.2006 passed in Review Case No.2 of 2000 under Annexure-5 and pass any such other or further order/orders as are deemed just and proper.” 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide the impugned order dated 26.04.2006, so passed by the Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-3, petitioner was held liable to pay back a sum of Rs.84,145.48/- towards audit recovery. It is also contended that Review filed by the petitioner against such an order, was also rejected vide judgment dated 11.10.2006 under Annexure-5 of Opp. Party No.1. 5.1. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, since the audit report for different years were prepared on 04.10.1991, 20.11.1991 and lastly on 26.06.1995 for different years, in view of the provisions contained under Section 69(1) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962, the dispute so initiated in Dispute Case No.1 of 2000 under Annexure-3, was barred by time. Section-69(1)of the Act reads as follows:- “69(1) When the dispute is between a Society or its committee and any past committee, past officer, past agent or past servant or the nominee, heir or legal representative of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased servant of the Society and when the dispute relates to any act or omission on the part of either party to the dispute, the period of limitation shall be four years from the date on which such act or omission with respect to which the dispute arose was first detected during the course of any inspection, enquiry, audit or winding up of the Society.” 5.2. It is contended that even though such a plea was taken by the petitioner before Opp. Party No.1 that the Dispute Case is barred by time having been filed beyond the period of limitation but without considering that aspect Opp. Party No.1 vide judgment dated 26.04.2006 under Annexure-3, held the petitioner liable to pay a sum of Rs.84,145.48/-. Review filed by the petitioner was also rejected by Opp. Party No.1 in his judgment dated 11.10.2006 under Annexure-5. 5.3. It is accordingly contended that since the dispute so filed by the Opp. Party No.1 is barred by time, direction contained in the impugned judgment, holding the petitioner liable to pay the amount in question is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 5.4. It is further contended that because of the pendency of the Writ Petition, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner till date. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.1 when take a stand that the last such audit report was prepared on 26.06.1996 and not on 26.06.1995, this Court passed the following order on 30.07.2026:- “1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for 0pp. Party No.1, wrongly shown as Opp. Party No.5 in the last order. 3. Considering the plea taken by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the last audit report being prepared on 26.06.1995 so reflected in para 10 of the plaint under Annexure-1, the period of limitation will start from that date and the submission of the learned counsel appearing for 0pp. Party No.1 that such audit report was prepared on 26.06.1996 so reflected in para 18 of the plaint, learned counsel appearing for the 0pp. Party No.1 is directed to produce copy of the audit report for the year 1986-87 for perusal on the next date. 4. As requested by Mr. R. Nayak, learned counsel, list this matter on 11th August, 2026.” 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.1 produced the audit report so prepared for different years in Court. This Court though finds that the last audit report was prepared on 26.06.1995 but learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.1 contended that even though the last such audit report was prepared on 26.06.1995 and the dispute was filed on 29.01.2000, but it is within the period of limitation and Opp. Party No.1 has not committed any wrong in holding the petitioner liable to pay the amount in its judgment dated 26.04.2006 under Annexure-3. 7.1. It is also contended that Review filed by the petitioner against such order, was rejected by Opp. Party No.1 in his order dated 11.10.2006 under Annexure-5. It is contended that since basing on the audit report so prepared lastly on 26.06.19995, petitioner paid a sum of Rs.378.26 paisa vide receipt dated 07.11.1996, the period of limitation will start from 07.11.1996 and not from 26.06.1995 and accordingly the dispute is not barred by time. 7.2. It is accordingly contended that the dispute was rightly filed within the period of limitation and no illegality or irregularity can be found with the orders passed by Opp. Party No.1 under Anenxure-3 and 5 respectively. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that the Dispute in question was filed by Opp. Party No.1 in Dispute Case No.1 of 2000 before Opp. Party No.1 on 29.01.2000. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Section-69(1) of the Act, this Court finds that such dispute was required to be filed within a period of 4(four) years from the date of publication of the last audit report which is 26.06.19995. 8.1. Since admittedly the dispute has been filed beyond the period of limitation so prescribed under Section-69(1) of the Act, this Court is of the view that the dispute was barred by time and it should not have been entertained. Stand taken by the Liquidator in his judgment that since the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.378.26 paisa from out of the demand basing on the audit report on 07.11.1997 and accordingly the period of limitation will start from the said date, as per the considered view of this Court is not the right approach taken by Opp. Party No.1. 8.2. Since the dispute admittedly has been filed beyond the period of limitation so provided under Section-69(1) of the Act, it is the view of this Court that the dispute could not have been entertained with passing of the impugned order under Annexures-3 and 5. 8.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the judgment passed by the Opp. Party No.1 on 26.04.2006 under Annexure-3, so confirmed vide order dated 11.10.2006 under Annexure-5 in review so far as it relates to the petitioner and quash both the orders accordingly. 9. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev