IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.23097 of 2015 Nityananda Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. N. Panda, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others Opposite Parties Mr.C.K. Pradhan, AGA Mr. B. Sahoo, Adv. (for O.P. No.2) Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Adv. (for O.P. No.4) COROM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 25.06.2026 8. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: Under the facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Application, issue RULE NISI directing the Opp. Parties why the impugned letter/order dtd.15.04.2015 under Annexure-8 and letter dt.11.05.2015 & 22.05.2015 under Annexure-9 series shall not be quashed And as to why the Petitioner shall not be provided the documents/papers which is the basic of questions to the Petitioner for his answer And as to why there shall not be complete special audit for the period covering for last five years or otherwise why it will not be held that the belated audit is unconstitutional. And if the Opp. Party fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the writ application be allowed. And/or pass any other order/direction as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper. And for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall in duty bound ever pray. 4. It is contended that without having any material available against the Petitioner, when the impugned letter was issued under Annexure-8, Government directing the Society to take Disciplinary action against the Petitioner, the present Writ Petition was filed challenging the same. It is further contended that because of the interim order passed by this Court on 02.03.2016, no Disciplinary action has yet been taken. 4.1. It is however contended that since without any reason and basis and without having any material against the Petitioner, such a letter was issued to the society, the same requires interference of this Court. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Society also fairly contended that basing on Annexure-8, no consequential action has yet been taken against the Petitioner as on date. Similar submission was also made by Mr.J.K. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing for Opp. party No.4. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to move an appropriate application before Opp. Party No.3 seeking recalling of the direction contained in letter dt.15.04.2015 under Annexure-8. 5.1. It is observed that if such an application is filed within the aforesaid time period, Opp. Party No. 3 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 be communicated to the Petitioner. 5.2. It is further observed that till a decision is taken, as directed, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner. Opp. Party No.3 is also directed to a personal hearing to the Petitioner, prior to taking a decision. 6. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sangita