Disposed

Mihir Kumar Pattanaik v. Tapan Mohapatra

Orissa HC20 Jul 2023CONTC/14/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a contempt petition for non-compliance of a 2019 High Court order regarding encroachment removal. The respondent requested two months' extension, which expired without compliance. The court extended the limit by four weeks and directed the respondent to remove the encroachment as soon as possible.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition stood disposed of with a direction to the opposite party/contemnor to comply the order under Annexure-1 within four weeks from now and ensure removal of the encroachment.

Mihir Kumar Pattanaik Vs Tapan Mohapatra — Contempt of Court | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CONTC No.14 of 2021

¶3

Mihir Kumar Pattanaik

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Suvashish Pattanaik, Advocate & Associates

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Tapan Mohapatra

¶8

…. Opposite Party/ Contemnor

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER
20.07.2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Babu, learned AGA appearing for the opposite party-contemnor.

¶15

Instant contempt petition is filed for non-compliance of the Court’s order dated 19^th August, 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 13931 of 2019 and direction issued in CONTC No. 2091 of 2020 vide Annexures- 1 & 2 respectively.

¶16

A show cause affidavit is filed by the opposite party/contemnor.

¶17

Mr. Babu, learned AGA submits that two months time was prayed for compliance of the Court’s order in connection with Encroachment Case No.126 of 2018 referring to the show cause affidavit at Annexure-A, Mr. Babu further submits that action has already been initiated by the opposite party/contemnor with a notice issued on 24^th April, 2008.

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

The said affidavit is dated 11^th May, 2023. As per the opposite party/contemnor, two months time was required to comply the Court’s order under Annexure-1 which has expired in the meantime. No instruction is available with Mr. Babu, learned AGA as to if the proceeding in Encroachment Case No.126 of 2018 is concluded or still pending with the removal of the encroachment.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the reply affidavit dated 20^th July, 2023 submits that the encroachment has not yet been cleared and therefore, the Court’s order under Annexure-1 is yet to be complied with.

¶21

Having regard to the show cause filed by the opposite party/contemnor, the Court is of the considered view that since two months’ time as was prayed for to be over by 11^th July, 2023, the Court is of the considered view that the encroachment if not yet moved, the opposite party/contemnor should be provided four weeks more to comply the order and direction issued vide Annexures-1 & 2.

¶22

Hence, it is ordered.

¶23

In the result, the contempt petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party/contemnor to comply the order under Annexure-1 as soon as possible preferably within the stipulated period and ensure removal of the alleged encroachment as has been claimed for by the petitioner, if it is not already over.

¶24

Kabita

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: Ohc,Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2023 16:48:25

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Mihir Kumar Pattanaik v. Tapan Mohapatra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mihir Kumar Pattanaik v. Tapan Mohapatra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalakar Sahu Vs Raj Kumar Sahu

S.K.Noor Mahammad Vs Sk.Rahim Bux

Narendra Panda Vs State of Odisha

Himansu Kumar Giri Vs Subrat@Muralidhar

Sanjib Kumar Swain Vs General Manager, East Coast Railways

Sidheswar Barik Vs State of Odisha