CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has upheld the decision of the inspector general of registration (IGR), Odisha, directing the All Odisha Truck Malik Mahasangha to change its proposed name before registration, observing that it could confuse the public and members of an existing truck owners’ body.
Justice Savitri Ratho dismissed the petition filed by the Mahasangha, represented by its president Puranjan Padhi, challenging the IGR’s December 30, 2025 order. The petitioner Mahasangha, formed for the welfare of truck owners across Odisha, had applied to the IGR for registration along with its memorandum of association, by-laws, supporting documents and prescribed fees.
Following the application, the IGR office asked the additional district magistrate (ADM) to conduct an inquiry. The inquiry was conducted by the BDO, Bhubaneswar, and a report was submitted on June 21, 2025. The ADM subsequently recommended registration of the association on August 4, 2025.
However, the Odisha State Truck Owners’ Federation raised an objection to the proposed name. After hearing the parties, the IGR on December 30, 2025 directed the petitioner to modify its name and submit a fresh registration proposal. The IGR had held that the proposed name could cause confusion because of its similarity with names of existing registered bodies.
Upholding the decision, Justice Ratho noted that the name Odisha State Truck Owners’ Federation and All Odisha Truck Malik Mahasangha were similar, particularly because the English translation of the petitioner’s name closely resembled that of the objecting association. “There is a possibility of public or members of both the associations being confused/deceived by the names,” the court observed.
The court further said that although the two associations might have different places of functioning and areas of operation, such distinction was not apparent from their names.
Justice Ratho also stressed the limited scope of judicial review, observing that the High Court was not required to sit in appeal over an order passed by the IGR under the applicable law when the decision was “neither perverse nor arbitrary”. Finding no ground to interfere with the IGR’s order, the court dismissed the petition.
