p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21011 of 2025 Trilochan Biswal …. Petitioner Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Orissa, represented through its Commissioner cum Secretary, Panchyat Raj Department 2. The BDO, Rajkanika 3. Prasanta Parida …. Opposite Parties Mr. P. K. Ray, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 29.01.2026 09. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. 2. Assailing the order passed on 16.07.2025 in Election Misc. Case.No.01/2022 under the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act and Rules by the learned Civil Judge, Aul (Election Tribunal), the present writ petition has been filed. 3. During the course of hearing, the question of maintainability cropped up and the learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sasmita Pradhan vrs. The District Collector-cum- District5 Election Officer, Puri and others reported in p. 2 2007 (Supplementary- II)-875 asserted that the writ petition is maintainable. 4. Per contra learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 referring to the latest dictum of this Court in the case of Sanjeeb Kumar Kar vrs. Anadi Charan and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 2792 in which the judgment relied upon in the case of Sasmita Pradhan (Supra) was considered and held to be per incurium. 5. Taking note of the same, the matter was adjourned to give an opportunity to the learned counsel for the Petitioner to respond to the submission regarding maintainability. 6. During the course of hearing, in the light of the of the latest judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjeeb Kumar Kar (Supra), the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition and file an appeal in terms of the provisions contained in Section 38(4) of Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. The said provision is extracted hereunder for convenience of reference:- xxx xxx xxx “ …… 38. Decision of [Civil Judge (Junior Division)] :-(1) to (3)- xxx (4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the ¹[Civil Judge (Junior Division)] may within thirty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal in such manner as may be prescribed before the District Judge having jurisdiction who shall after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, confirm, reverse, alter or modify the order of the ¹[Civil Judge (Junior Division)] p. 3 and pending disposal of such appeal may direct stay of operation of the said order.” xxx xxx xxx (Emphasized) On a bare perusal of the said provision, it is seen that the appeal in question was to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. 7. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed on 16.07.2025 and the Petitioner approached this Court on 25.07.2025 and the matter was entertained and interim order was passed. Though by the date of filing of writ petition before this Court the judgment in the case of Sanjeeb Kumar Kar (Supra) has been pronounced but keeping in view the law in the case of Sasmita Pradhan (Supra), it is submitted that the writ petition filed bonafidely. 8. On a conspectus material on record, this Court ….. taking into account the promptitude with which the writ petition was filed is persuaded to grant leave to the Petitioner to file appeal in terms of Section 38(4) of Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964, if so advised. In the event such appeal is filed within a period of four weeks hence and application for condonation of delay is filed, this Court has no iota of doubt that the learned District Judge shall consider the same in the light of the provisions as contained in Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963. p. 4 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Certified copy of the impugned order be returned to the Petitioner on being substituted by authenticated copy. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Jina