The Single Judge dismissed the contempt application as the grounded impugned order had already been complied with. Instead of entertaining the application, the court directed the petitioner to file a separate writ petition if dissatisfied with the compliance order.
Contempt proceeding dismissed. Liberty granted to approach appropriate forum.
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. 1773 of 2018
Heard Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate.
The petitioner has filed this application alleging non-compliance of the order dated 20.11.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.23556 of 2017.
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to non-compliance of the order, the petitioner had filed CONTC No.717 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.08.2018 directing the opposite parties to comply the order within three months. But, the said order has not been complied with, therefore the petitioner has filed this application.
Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate states that the order of this Court has already complied with by passing a reasoned and speaking order which has been annexed to the writ petition taking from the copy of the note sheet of the authority concerned at page no.37. Therefore, the contention raised that the order of this Court has not been complied with is not correct. However, if the petitioner does not satisfy with the order, he may challenge the same by filing separate writ petition.
Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since the order of this Court has already been
complied with, may be the same is not correct as per the requirement of the petitioner, then in that case, remedy lies to approach the appropriate forum challenging the said order instead of filing the contempt application. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum ventilating his grievance in accordance with law.
The contempt proceeding stands disposed of.
…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE
Ashok
Petitioner
DR. B. R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
