IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 11734 of 2026 Sambaru Nayak & Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S. Rath, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 22.04.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioners, therefore, pray that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same, issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/ mandamus and/or any other further writ/direction and quash the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative under Annexure-1, Societies, Malkangiri Division and direct the opposite party/DRCS Malkangiri Division to reinstate the committee of management of Mathili LAMPCS Ltd. within a stipulated period. And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that vide the impugned order dtd.06.09.2025 under Annexure-1 the Committee of Management though was placed under suspension in exercise of the power confirmed under Section-32(7) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 and as provided under the said provision the Committee of Management can be put under suspension for a maximum period of six(6) months, but on the face of expiry of the period of six(6) months, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is yet to be withdrawn by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies –Opposite Party No.3. 4.1. It is also contended that after placing the Committee of Management under suspension, when Opposite Party No.3 desired to initiate a proceeding for supersession of the Committee of Management, in terms of the provisions contained under Section 32(1) of the Act, the same was regretted by the Financing Bank vide its letter dtd.22.12.2025 under Annexure- 10. 4.2. It is also contended that communication issued by the Financing Bank under Annexure-10 has not been assailed by anybody. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that since the Financing Bank never gave the consent for initiation of the supersession proceeding so available under Annexure-10 and the order of suspension passed on 06.09.2025 has lost its force in view of the provisions contained under Section-32(7) of the Act, the said order is required to be treated as dropped. 5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that if as contended the order at Annexure-1 has lost its force, let the Petitioners bring the same to the notice of Opposite Party No.3, by filing an appropriate and for its consideration in accordance with law. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioners to move an appropriate application for withdrawal of order dtd. 06.09.2025 so issued under Annexure-1, taking into account the provisions contained under Section-32(7) of the Act and the documents available under Annexure-10. 6.1. It is observed that if any such application will be filed within a period of seven (7) days hence, Opp. Party No.3 shall do well, to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No.3 be communicated to the Petitioners. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat