IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.28972 & 29007 of 2025 Golap Naik & Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. P. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 14.10.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28972 of 2025 & Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29007 of 2025 & Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State in both the cases. 3. Since both the Writ Petitions have been filed inter alia on similar issue and with similar prayer, both the Writ Petitions were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in the aforesaid two Writ Petitions vehemently contended that basing on the enquiry report made and prepared under Annexure-1, Petitioners though have been noticed to give their findings on the enquiry report vide the show cause notice dtd.22.09.2025 so issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Odisha, but the report basing on which the impugned show cause notice has been issued on 22.09.2025, is not sustainable in the eye of law as the enquiry so made with submission of the report on 16.09.2025, has not been conducted in terms of the provisions contained under Section-65(1) of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 (in short ‘Act’). 4.1. It is also contended that such an enquiry has been made basing on a complaint, which was never made in accordance with the provisions contained under Section- 65(2) of the Act. 4.2. It is also contended that while conducing such an enquiry with submission of the report, provisions contained under Section-65(3) of the Act has not been followed. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that the report submitted on 16.09.2025 and the show cause notice issued on 22.09.2025 requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that basing on the report so submitted on 16.09.2025, Petitioners while being issued with the show cause on 22.09.2025, they have been permitted to give their reply to the finding of the enquiry report and to attend the hearing on 14.10.2025. Since the Petitioners have the opportunity to raise all such points as has been raised in the present Writ Petitions, without giving the reply to the show-cause, the present Writ Petition at its present stage is not at all entertainable. 5.1. It is also contended by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel that State has the power to direct for such enquiry in terms of the provisions contained under Section-123(A) of the Act. Since enquiry has been conducted basing on the direction issued by the Government in terms of the aforesaid provision, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the enquiry and the report submitted on 16.09.2025. 6. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing both the Writ Petitions, permit the Petitioners to file their reply to the show cause issued on 22.09.2025 by taking all those pleas that are available and so raised in the present Writ Petitions. However, since date of submission of the reply to the show cause vide the impugned notice has been fixed to today, this Court permits the Petitioners to file their reply on or before 25.10.2025, if the same has not been submitted. 6.1. This Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to accept the reply to be submitted on or before 25.10.2025 and decide the issue which is the subject matter of the show cause and also by framing a preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry conducted on the direction of the co-operation Department is in accordance with law. This Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to take a lawful decision on the issue as directed hereinabove on or before 15.11.2025. Till 15.11.2025, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioners. 7. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected cases. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat