p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.32431 of 2024 Elena Das …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Panda, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC Mr. N.K. Sethi, Advocate For O.P. Nos.4 to 16 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 03.01.2025 02. 1. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Singh, learned ASC for the State and Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.6 to 16. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to opposite party No.3 to take action against the private opposite parties in pursuance of the provisions of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) considering the complaint, such as, Annexure-1 dated 18th November, 2024 on the grounds stated therein. 3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding is required to be concluded in terms of Section 26 of the Act, upon receiving the complaint i.e. Annexure-1. It is further submitted that an enquiry has been held and while claiming so, a reference is made to Annexure-2, a letter dated 21st September, 2024 addressed to the concerned BDO. It is lastly submitted that a direction may perhaps be issued to opposite party No.3 to consider Annexure-1 and to take a prompt decision according to law. Page 2 of 2 4. Mr. Sethy, learned counsel for the private opposite parties submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of this Court in Sulochana Sethy Vrs. The Collector, Puri & others in W.P.(C) No.12642 of 2021 disposed of on 8th November, 2021. 5. Recorded the submission of Mr. Singh, learned ASC for the State opposite party Nos.1 to 5. 6. Regard being had to the limited grievance of the petitioner with regard to the complaint as at Annexure-1 to have been received by the authority concerned, an inquiry having been held, which is, of course, disputed by Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the private opposite parties, the Court is of the considered view that opposite party No.3 is required to take decision in accordance with law. The Court is also of the view that any such decision by opposite party No.3 shall have to be in confirmity with the provisions of the Act and keeping in view with the settled legal position and plea of the private opposite parties, which is based on the decision in Sulochana Sethy (supra). 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid to be complied with by opposite party No.3 to attend to the complaint i.e. Annexure-1 and to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act followed by a decision and order as soon as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram