WP(C)/27954/2026 of VIJAY KUMAR BALA Vs BARIPADA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MAYURBHANJ on 1 September 2026

ORDER

01.09.2026 Order No.

01.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. Mukherji, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed therein.

3. By filing the present writ application, the petitioner has sought for the following relief:- “It is therefore humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue appropriate Writ/Writ’s, direction/direction’s to the Opposite Party No.1-Bank for finalization of the loan account No.2382 and term loan account No.35/01 in view of One Time Settlement Scheme, 2006 and no objection issued by the Opposite Party-Bank vide Annexure-5 & 6, payment made by the Petitioner vide Annexure-8, further issue direction for release of the mortgaged properties under Schedule-A in the best interest of justice. And for any other such order/order’s, relief/relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. And for such act of kindness the petitioner in duty bound shall ever pray.”

4. Learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner had initially availed loan from the Opposite Party-Bank in the year in between 1994-1997 to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- in one account and Rs.8,00,000/- in another account. Such loan amount was duly sanctioned by the Opposite Party-Bank in favour of the Petitioner. Consequently, the Petitioner sustained huge financial loss. As such, he could not repay the loan taken from the Opposite Party-Bank. The Petitioner’s unit was also declared sick. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party-Bank for finalization of the loan account in the year 2002.

5. Learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in the year 2006, there was One Time Settlement Scheme adopted by the Opposite Party-Bank for settlement of the deposited loan accounts. Accordingly, the Joint Director of Industries, who wrote a letter dated 30.05.2007 to the Chief Manager of the Bank for consideration of the finalization of loan account of the Petitioner under the aforesaid OTS scheme, 2006. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, the Opposite Party-Bank wrote to the Registrar of Co- operative Societies intimating the fact that the Bank is ready and willing to settle the amount under the OTS Scheme, at Rs.23,50,000/- and, accordingly, granted NOC for such finalization on 12.11.2007.

6. On 29.04.2013, the Chief Manager of the Bank forwarded the representation of the Petitioner to the RCS, Odisha with no objection for settlement of the loan account of the Petitioner. However, no decision was taken by the RCS, Odisha, which compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.21650 of 2015. This Court disposed of the said writ application vide order dated 20.01.2016, at the time of admission of the writ application and directed the Petitioner to deposit the entire amount of Rs.23,50,000/- and, subject to such payment, the Bank was directed not to take any coercive action.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Petitioner deposited the entire amount of Rs.23,50,000/- on 16.02.2016 before the Opposite Party-Bank. In support of such contention, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner referred to the acknowledgement at Annexure-9 to the writ application. He further contended that while the matter was pending before the authorities, the Petitioner approached this Court seeking withdrawal of the earlier writ application with liberty to approach the liquidator of the Opposite Party-Bank, since, by then, the Bank had gone to liquidation. The previous writ application was withdrawn on 01.02.2023. After withdrawal of the previous writ application, the Petitioner again submitted a representation before the liquidator, i.e. RCS, Odisha, on 03.05.2023, at Annexure-11 to the writ application. Such representation of the Petitioner was duly forwarded to the Registrar, Co-operative Society vide letter dated

27.09.2023, at Annexure-12, by the Deputy Registrar of the Co- operative Society. However, no action was taken on such representation of the Petitioner. Once again the Petitioner was compelled to file another representation before the liquidator of Opposite Party No.1-Bank i.e. RCS, Odisha on 21.03.2024, at Annexure-13 to the writ application.

8. The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ application is that although the Petitioner has deposited the entire amount pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application and he had already submitted the application for One Time Settlement of his account under the OTS Scheme, 2006, no final decision has been taken as of now. He further submitted that the Petitioner seeks to challenge the inaction on the part of the Opposite Party No.3, the liquidator of Opposite Party No.1-Bank, as no decision has been taken on the representation pending before him. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that although he has no specific instructions in the matter, however on a perusal of the pleadings as well as the documents annexed to the present writ application, it appears that the Petitioner has already approached the competent authority for redressal of his grievance and it appears that the same is pending for final consideration.

10. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that he has no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time.

11. Having regard to the submissions made by learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the subsequent development, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner keeping in view the factual background of the present case as has been narrated hereinabove and take a final decision in accordance with law and the applicable scheme/guidelines within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.3, be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.

12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of.

13. This order be communicated by the Registry of this Court, requisites for communication of such order be filed within a week.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

Judge

Sumitra

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Sep-2026 16:18:27 Signature Not Verified