In this contempt petition, the Court found that the prior order directing the petitioner's representation be disposed of was complied with via an office order. Consequently, the contempt proceedings were dropped though the petitioner could appeal the underlying order.
The contempt petition is dropped.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CONTC No.338 of 2015
05. 18.08.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel f
or the State.
This contempt petition has been filed for non-compliance of th
e order of this Court dated 12.04.2013, passed in W.P.(C) Nos.5131 of 2013.
e order of this Court dated 12.04.2013, passed in W.P.(C) Nos.5131 of 2013.
Learned counsel for the State with reference to the Office Ord
er of the State Project Director, Bhubaneswar, dated 11.11.2014, submits that the order of thi
s Court has already been complied.
On a perusal of the order of this Court dated 12.04.2013, it i
s seen that the direction had been issued to the opposite party no.2, to dispose of the repres
entation of the petitioner.
In view of the fact that the representation of the pet
itioner has already been disposed of by the opposite party no.2 vide Office Order dated 11.11.
2014, the contempt proceeding is dropped.
However, it is open for the petitioner to assail the Office Or
der dated 11.11.2014, if he has any grievance.
CONTC is accordingly disposed of.Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J.
uks
D.P. Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court