Biswajit Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others

R.K. Pattanaik, J

Heard the petitioner-in-person and Mr. Patra, learned ASC for the State opposite party No.1.

Notice to opposite party No.2 has been served through a Special Messenger as made to reveal from the record. None appears for opposite party No.2 despite such service of notice.

Notice to opposite party No.3 is also sufficient but none has appeared today at the time of call.

Despite absence of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, considering the urgency shown, the Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by the following order on the basis of the submission of the petitioner.

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Annexure-7 and letter dated 8th February, 2022 i.e. Annexure-9 issued by opposite party No.2 with consequential direction on the grounds stated therein.

The petitioner submits that opposite party No.2 does not have authority and as such to deal with the fund of the State Animal Welfare Board, Odisha, hence, therefore, the agreement in question, a copy of which at Annexure-7 is not to be given effect to. Furthermore, it is submitted by the petitioner that the grievance as against opposite party No.2 is pending consideration vide Annexure-11 and till date, no decision has been taken on the same, hence, the writ petition.

Mr. Patra, learned ASC appearing for the State opposite party No.1 submits that the agreement is to expire on 13th April, 2024 as made to appear from Annexure-7.

Gone through Annexure-11 which is addressed to the Director of A.H. & V.S Odisha-cum-Member Secretary, SAWB. Referring to Annexure-10, a copy of the byelaw of the society, it is drawn to the attention of the Court by the petitioner that the Member Secretary, State Animal Welfare Board, shall be responsible for maintenance of the accounts subject to approval of the Board. It is claimed that no approval has been obtained from the Board so to say, hence, therefore, opposite party No.2 has no authority to maintain the accounts and manage the fund of the society. Such a contention in advanced by the petitioner referring to information collected vide Anenxure-6. It is further alleged that the Joint Director (AW) and Deputy Director (AW) cannot operate the account of the Board which is against the RBI guidelines. With all such contentions, the challenge is with respect to Annexure-7 as well as the decision under Annexure-9, a letter addressed to the bank dated 8th February, 2022.

Having regard to the above facts and recording the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, since the allegation which has been made by the petitioner, who claims himself as one of the Members of the Board, besides Ms. Pradhan, learned counsel for the intervenerin I.A. No. 1350 of 2024, since needs verification to ascertain whether the provisions of the byelaw and RBI guidelines have been duly followed by opposite party No.2, the Court is of the view that the same is required to be examined by the Director, A.H. & V.S Odisha-cum-Member Secretary, SAWB taking into account the grievance under Annexure-11 for a decision within a stipulated period.

Hence, it is ordered.

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Director, A.H. & V.S Odisha-cum-Member Secretary, SAWB to consider Annexure-11 and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the intervener and of course, opposite party No.2, to take a decision on the same at the earliest preferably within period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, Annexure-7 shall not be given effect to.

Urgent copy of the order be issued as per rules.

.………………………………