The applicant contended that the alleged contemner violated a direction in an order dated 17.1.2020 to consider a representation. The court rejected reopening the disposed writ petition in contempt jurisdiction, accepted the unconditional apology as satisfactory, and disposed of the contempt petition.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC No.1618 of 2020 (Through hybrid mode)
Pitamber Rout
Applicant
Mr. P.Behera, Advocate
-versus-
Chitta Ranjan Pattanaik
…. Contemner
Mr. A.K.Sharma, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
26.11.2021
Order No.
04.
1. Mr. Behera, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant and submits, alleged contemner should be held up for contempt for having violated direction in order dated 17th January, 2020.
2. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf alleged contemner and submits, it will appear particularly from paragraphs 6 to 10 in the show-cause that the directions have been complied with.
3. Mr. Behera responds by submitting, his client’s house was completely destroyed in super cyclone “FANI”. In the writ petition there was disclosed compensation granted to his client. But now, story of his client living permanently in concrete roof house because of political rivalry.
4. By order dated 17th January, 2020, the writ petition was disposed of with following directions:-
Page 1 of 1
// 2 //
“Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the writ petition directing the opposite party No.4 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Anneure-6 and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.”
Prasant
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is liable for contempt for violating the direction to pass appropriate order within three months in the writ petition.
Whether the grievance can be looked into in contempt jurisdiction when the writ petition has been disposed of.
Whether the unconditional apology tendered by the alleged contemner satisfies the requirements for disposal of the contempt petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pitamber Rout
Arindam Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
