p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 669 of 2026 Duryodhan Malik …. Petitioner Mr. L. Sarangi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. D. Lenka, AGA For the O.Ps.1 to 3 CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER 20.01.2026 Hybrid Mode 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the opposite parties 1 to 3. In view of the order that is going to be passed, no notice is issued to O.P. No.4. 2. The petitioner by filing the petition has challenged the initiation of certificate cases before the authority i.e. Sub- Collector O.P. N.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased a Mini Truck by availing loan from the O.P. No.4- Odisha Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Finance Co-operative Corporation Ltd. The said loan is alleged to have not been serviced and the petitioner has defaulted in repaying the loan. Thereafter the vehicle was seized by the loan disbursing corporation-O.P. No.4 and a demand was raised. Apparently a proceeding was initiated before the Odisha Public Demand Recovery as prescribed in the statute for p. 2 recovery of the due amount. Notice from the said authority under OPDR Act dated 26.09.2025 was issued which is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceeding. 3. On being asked whether the petitioner has challenged the original recovery notice or seizure of the vehicle or any other proceeding has been initiated challenging the demand, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he has no instructions. 4. Learned AGA submits that there is an appeal provision contained in OPDR Act under section 60. The said sections reproduced herein : 60. Appeal- (1) An appeal from any original order made under this Act shall lie – (a) if the order was made by a Certificate Officer below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate, to the Additional District Magistrate; (b) if the order was made by an Additional District Magistrate, to the Collector; (c) if the order was made by a Collector to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner: Provided that no appeal shall lie from an order setting aside a sale on an application made under Section 27. (2) Every such appeal shall be presented within thirty days from the date of the order appealed against. (3) Pending the decision of any appeal, execution may be stayed if the appellate authority so directs, but not otherwise. Provided that the appellate authority shall not direct stay of execution in any case, unless- p. 3 (a) the certificate-debtor has paid at least fifty percentum of the total amount due under the certificate to the certificate officer, whether or not under protest made in writing at the time of payment, and produces a certificate from the certificate officer showing such payment to have been made; or (b) After considering the evidence adduced, he has prima facie reasons to believe on the plea of the certificate-debtor that the public demand said to be due from him under the certificate has, in fact, been paid. 5. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition so that the petitioner would pursue remedy of appeal as available under statute OPDR Act, 1962. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. If the petitioner files appeal under section 60 of the OPDR Act and there is any delay in filing the appeal, the appellate authority shall consider pendency of the writ petition as a bona fide reason and the period of pendency of the writ petition shall be excluded while calculating period of delay if any. (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge dutta