W.P.(C) No.17407 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17407 of 2021 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Madhusudan Padhi …. Petitioner -versus- The Lokayukta Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. S.K.Dash, Sr.Advocate along with Mr.P.Das, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K.Mohanty, Advocate for OP Nos. 2 to 4 Mr.M.K.Mishra, Sr.Advocate along with Mr.J.Sahoo, Advocate for OP No.6 Mr.C.Mohanty, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING AND JUDGMENT: 12.05.2026 G. Satapathy, J. 1. The writ petitioner by way of invoking the extra ordinary power of this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by Lokayukta in Complaint (LY-1248 of 2020) for the limited extent with a prayer to expunge the remarks passed against him. W.P.(C) No.17407 of 2021 2. Since the core issue is to expunge the remarks passed against the writ petitioner, it would be relevant and necessary to quote the relevant portion of the order by which a Bench of Lokayukta while closing the complaint holding it to be unmerited has inter alia observed as under:- “Xxx xx xx.Moreover from the report dated 22.04.2017, it is clear that the complaint of Sri Madhusudan Padhi was not well intention. xx xx xx”. 3. The short facts as involved in this case is that alleging large scale corruption in procurement of poly film pouch through M/S. Kamala Agency, Cuttack during the period August 2015 to June 2016 causing loss to Orissa State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited (in short, “OMFED”), one Pradeep Pradhan-OP2 stated to be a whistleblower and public spirited person approached the Lokayukta with a complaint, wherein it is alleged that OP No.6 namely Bishnupada Sethi an IAS Officer and the then Managing Director of OMFED accepted the proposal of M/S. Indian Diary Machinery Company Limited W.P.(C) No.17407 of 2021 (IDMC) and cancelled the earlier tender for procurement of poly film pouch through M/S. Kamala Agency and during his tenure, around 668 Metric Ton of poly film packaging materials were ordered to be procured from M/S. Kamala Agency through individual quotation with malafide intention to benefit such institution at the cost of OMFED assets and thereby, caused a loss to OMFED for a sum of Rs.6.35 crores and the writ petitioner Sri Madhusudan Padhi another IAS Officer-cum-Managing Director, OMFED while succeeding to the Office of Director of OMFED had written Demi Official letter to the then Chief Secretary for an inquiry by an appropriate agency so as to fix responsibility and to recover the loss caused to the OMFED, but when no action was taken, the OP No.2 approached the Lokayukta for passing an appropriate order resulting in issuance of notice to Chief Secretary as well as OP No.6 who appeared and filed their reply and after going through the reply and hearing them, the Lokayukta passed the impugned order closing the complaint finding it to be W.P.(C) No.17407 of 2021 unmeritorious with the observation/remarks indicated supra against the writ petitioner which is sought to be deleted in this writ petition. 4. Heard, Mr.Susanta Kumar Dash, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Mr.Prabin Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Mr.Jitamanyu Sahoo, learned counsel for OP No.6; Mr. Santosh Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for OP Nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. C.Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel. 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, this Court feels it proper to extract the response of the opposite parties to the prayer of the petitioner and it is, accordingly, found from the counter affidavit of OP Nos. 2 to 4 that they have made no comments against it. For clarity, this Court extracts the relevant averment as stated by the writ petitioner in Paragraph-6 of the writ petition which inter alia states as under:- W.P.(C) No.17407 of 2021 “Xx xx xx. xx it is a matter of pity that the Hon’ble Lokayukta went a step ahead to observe that the complaint made by the petitioner was not well intention.” In response to the aforesaid averments of Paragraph-6 of the writ petition, OP Nos. 2 to 4 in their counter affidavit has stated as under:- “That to the averments made in Paragraphs Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7, the present opposite parties have no comments to offer as they are matter of record.” 6. On the other hand, OP No.6 in his counter affidavit has made reply to the aforesaid averments of the writ petitioner by inter alia quoting the order of the Lokayukta in response to Paragraph- 6 of the writ petition and he further stated in Paragraph-30 which reads as under:- “30.That is further submitted that the learned Lokayukta after perusing the entire record was pleased to pass an order dated 17.02.2021 which revealed the sinister designs, deceptive tactics adopted by the petitioner, Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 (Complainants in LY-1248 of 2020), Ashok Nanda & Others who have approached various forums with unclean hands, malafide intention, espousing frivolous cause & forming an unholy nexus.” W.P.(C) No.17407 of 2021 7. On a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid facts as narrated hereinbefore, it is very clear that the challenge of the writ petitioner to expunge remarks has not been really challenged by the OP2 to 4, but OPNo.6 has made a feeble attempt to oppose the same by using the jugglery of words, such as “sinister designs and deceptive tactics”, but it is not really countered by OP6. Besides, neither the writ petitioner was made as a party to the proceeding before the Lokayukta nor was he heard in the matter nor was he directly involved in the said proceeding, but the Bench of the Lokayukta has stated to have gone through the reply of the Chief Secretary and inter-alia observed in the impugned order that the above mentioned complaint of Madhusudan Padhi- writ petitioner was duly placed before the Government General Administration and Public Grievance Department whereafter, it was ordered that Fisheries & Animal Resource Development (F & ARD) Department shall enquire into the matter, but the entire impugned order does not disclose as to W.P.(C) No.17407 of 2021 how the complaint of the writ petitioner was not well intentioned. It is true that a forum can make any observation against a party, but it cannot and should not observe anything adverse against a person, who is not a party to the proceeding nor was he heard in the matter. It is no doubt contended by Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for OPNo.6 that the observation/remarks of the Lokayukta as found in the impugned order is not an adverse remarks/observation, but the very use of word “not well intentioned” is really an adverse imputation against a person against whom it has been used. The principle of audi alteram partem reminds us that no one should be condemned unheard, but in this case, such principle has not been followed while observing or making adverse remarks against the writ petitioner. The imputation made against a person without hearing him and more particularly when it affects his character/conduct, it would be really an adverse remarks/observation against such person, which can be expunged by way W.P.(C) No.17407 of 2021 of direction of the Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction or even on suo motu or on application of the party, which is evident from the law laid down in the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another; (2011) 12 SCC 689; wherein the Apex Court in paragraph- 12 has observed thus:- “12. This Court held that the court in its inherent jurisdiction can expunge the adverse remarks suo moto or even on application of a party. However, there must be a ground for expunging as such remarks were not justified, or were without foundation, or were wholly wrong or improper and expunging thereof is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, the court must bear in mind that such jurisdiction being of exceptional nature must be exercised only in exceptional cases.” 8. In the sequence of events and taking into account the limited prayer as advanced for the petitioner to expunge the remarks passed against him, more particularly when he is neither a party nor was heard in the matter and keeping in view the impermissible objection made by OPNo.6 to oppose expunction of such remarks/observation against the W.P.(C) No.17407 of 2021 writ petitioner and regard being had to the averments of the writ petition and the counter affidavits and the observation/remarks as sought for to be deleted being unjustified and passed without really assessing it’s import/ramifications and keeping in view the dignity and reputation of the writ petitioner, the remarks as made against the writ petitioner without any foundation and the same being a scar to the reputation of the writ petitioner needs in all fairness to be expunged in the interest of justice . In the result, the writ petition stands allowed and the adverse observation/remarks “Moreover, from the report dated 22.04.2017 it is clear that the complaint of Sri Madhu Sudan Padhi was not well intentioned” as appearing in the impugned order stands expunged; but there is no order as to costs. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 12th day of May, 2026/Kishore