WP(C)/2044/2026 of ALL ODISHA TRUCK MALIKA MAHASANGHA, BHUBANESWAR Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 7 August 2026

1. State of Odisha, represented through the Commissioner -cum- Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Bhubaneswar

2. Inspector General of Registration-cum- Registrar of Societies, Odisha, Cuttack

….

Opposite Parties

Advocates who has appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode:

For Petitioners

: Mr. Alok Kumar Panda,

Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. Bibekananda Nayak,

Additional Government

Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

………………………………………………….…………………… Date of Hearing and Judgment: 07.08.2026

………………………………………………………………………

Savitri Ratho, J. This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure-6) issued by the Opposite Party No.2

(Inspector General of Registration-cum-Registrar of Societies, Odisha) directing the Secretary of the All Odisha Truck Malika Mahasangha (in short “Association”) to modify the proposed name of the Association and resubmit the registration proposal in accordance with the Act and guidelines.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The Association had been formed for the betterment of truck owners all over State of Odisha and application was submitted before Opposite Party No.2 for registration of the association accompanied by supporting documents with the memorandum of association, by-laws and required fees. On 02.06.2025, the Additional District Magistrate (in short “ADM”) was asked by the office of the Opposite Party No.2 to conduct enquiry and submit report. Enquiry was conducted by the BDO, Bhubaneswar and report dated 21.06.2026 was submitted. On 04.08.2025, the ADM recommended to the Opposite Party No.2 that the society be registered.

3. An objection was filed by Odisha State Truck Owners Federation and a hearing was conducted by Opposite Party No.2. On 30.12.2025, the Opposite Party No.2 passed the impugned order.

IMPUGNED ORDER

4. The Opposite Party No.2 vide order dated 04.08.2025, has held that the proposed name of the Association may cause confusion with the existing registered bodies, attracting the restrictions and hence advised the Secretary of the Association to modify the proposed name of the Association and resubmit the registration proposal.

SUBMISSIONS

5. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner emphasizes that the names of the Petitioner Associations and the objection Odisha State Truck Owners Federation bear no resemblance to each other and both are operating in different areas. Their members are different, place of functioning is different and activities are different for which there is no possibility of confusion on account of its proposed name. He also submits that Opposite Party No. 2 has no power to direct the Petitioner to make any modification in the proposed name of the association and resubmit the registration. He further submits that in view of the recommendation of the ADM, Bhubaneswar for registration of the Petitioner as a State Level Society, the Opposite Party No.2 should have directed for registration of the Association. He finally submits that for the above reasons, the impugned order is liable for interference.

6. Mr. B. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate referring to Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 submits that since the name of the Petitioner-association resembles the name of the Odisha State Truck Owner’s Federation which has submitted an objection to registration of its name, there was possibility of the public and members of the association being confused and deceived by the proposed name with the name of the existing association which had given its objection. He further submits that since the Opposite Party No.2 instead of rejecting the application for registration has given a suggestion for modification of proposed name, the Petitioner should not have any grievance against such suggestion. STATUTORY PROVISION

7. The provision of Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act,1860 is extracted below:

“[3-A. Prohibition against registration of societies with undesirable names - No society shall be registered by a name which, in the opinion of the Registrar of Societies is undesirable, being a name identical with or, which in the opinion of the Registrar of Societies so nearly resembles the name by which any other existing society has been previously registered under this Act or any body corporate which has been incorporated or registered under any other law for the time being in force as to be likely to deceive the public or members of either society or any body corporate, or which, without the previous permission of the Government concerned, suggests or is calculated to suggest the patronage of that Government or connection with any body constituted by that Government or any local authority, or which may, subject to any rules made in that behalf, be deemed to be undesirable by the Registrar of Societies.]” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

8. Perused the impugned order dated 30.12.2025, where it is stated that the proposed name may cause confusion due to similarity with the existing registered bodies.

9. In my opinion, the name of ‘Odisha State Truck Owner’s Federation’ and the name of the Petitioner i.e. ‘All Odisha Truck Malik Mahasangha’ are similar, in as much as the English translation of the name of the Petitioner Association is very similar to the name of the Association which has submitted its objection. Hence, there is a possibility of Public or members of both the Association being confused / deceived by the names. Place of functioning and area of operation of the existing Association and Petitioner Association may be different, but this is not discernible from the names of the two associations, which are similar.

10. While exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court is not to sit in appeal over the order of the Inspector General of Registration who has exercised power under the Act, when such order is neither perverse nor arbitrary.

11. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Opposite Party No.2 at Annexure-6.

12. The writ application is accordingly dismissed.

13. Urgent certified copy be granted on proper application.

………………….

(Savitri Ratho)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated, the 7th August, 2026/Madhusmita/Sukanta Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 09-Aug-2026 21:19:18 Signature Not Verified