Orissa High Court
WA/366/2025 of BISWARANJAN MOHANTY Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 24 June 2026
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.366 of 2025 Biswaranjan Mohanty …. Appellant Mr. S.P. Sarangi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Respondents Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 24.06.2026 11. This
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.366 of 2025
Biswaranjan Mohanty
….
Appellant
Mr. S.P. Sarangi, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others
….
Respondents
Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
24.06.2026
11. This Intra-Court Appeal seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 08.01.2025, whereby Appellant’s W.P.(C) No.18920 of 2024 has been negatived.
2. It is unanimously stated at the Bar, which really is appreciable that the suspension of Managing Committee of a non- banking Co-operative society has a statutorily fixed tenure of six months reckoned from the date of suspension and therefore, the suspension withers away in thin air by operation of law after the expiry of the said six months and as a consequence, the functionality of the Committee is revived for all practical purposes.
3. In view of the above, regardless of the arguable infirmities in the impugned order, we are of the considered view that matter has become infructuous. This statement would not be doing justice to the Parties unless we make it clear that the Managing
Committee in question is revived and that while computing its tenure, the period of suspension shall be added. This is to ensure that the popular mandate to hold the office for a specified period is not cut short, even when suspension is directed.
4. All the above being said, we hasten to add that while computing the period of suspension, the period during which interim order of the Court operated needs to be excluded. This is for the authorities to undertake the exercise, on the basis of what is on the record. We are told that there has been an interim order dated 13.02.2025 wherein paragraphs-5 & 6 read as under:
“5. On query made submission on behalf of appellant is, there was interim order staying the suspension, passed by the learned single Judge. It was extended but vacated by impugned judgment. Miss Dash lays emphasis, it was the suspension order. Same was followed by disqualification.
6. In view of aforesaid two paragraphs from letter dated 5th February, 2025 indicating that necessary action for conducting election was sought as on that date, we direct status quo be maintained till next date of hearing.”
Subsequently, the same has been continued. We make it clear that only stay of suspension order should be taken note of for such computation and not the order of status quo qua conducting of election.
With the above observation, this Writ Appeal is disposed off.
No costs.
(Krishna S. Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge Bijay/Sarbani Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jun-2026 19:28:17 Signature Not Verified