Jasobanta Das Vs Panchanan Nayak, O.A.S Tahasildar… — Contempt of Court | Orissa HC (2026)

Jasobanta Das Vs Panchanan Nayak, O.A.S Tahasildar… — Contempt of Court | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite party (the Tahasildar, Pattamundai) is guilty of deliberate or intentional disobedience of the order dated 02.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C)(PIL) No.21223 of 2025, warranting punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court does not perceive any deliberate or intentional disobedience in compliance with the order dated 02.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C)(PIL) No.21223 of 2025.

Ratio / Principle

Perusing the photographs enclosed with the writ petition, the Court finds no encroachment; one or two street vendors are selling fish in front of half-constructed structures, and it does not appear that they have encroached upon any portion of Government land by putting up structures causing hindrance to the public.

Key takeaways

It is not discernible from the photographs whether the portion used by the vendor to sell fish belongs to the Government, such disputed questions cannot be decided in the writ petition, and the photographs do not reveal any encroachment on the road/Government land.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts — non-compliance of writ order — no wilful disobedience found. Jasobanta Das and others filed CONTC No.1375 of 2026 in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack alleging that Panchanan Nayak, OAS, the Tahasildar, Pattamundai, had not complied with the order dated 02.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C)(PIL) No.21223 of 2025, by which a PIL concerning alleged encroachment of Government land by roadside fish-sellers had been disposed of after a Revenue Inspector's enquiry reported the plot free from encroachment. Relying on photographs, the petitioners' counsel contended the Government land remained encroached. Perusing those photographs, the Court found no encroachment — one or two street vendors were selling fish in front of half-constructed structures without putting up structures hindering the public — and held that whether the spot used by the vendor belonged to the Government could not be discerned from the photographs. Finding no deliberate or intentional disobedience of the 02.12.2025 order, the Court dismissed the contempt petition on 05.05.2026 (Coram: the Chief Justice, Harish Tandon, and Justice Murahari Sri Raman).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No.1375 of 2026

Jasobanta Das … Petitioners and others

Mr. Ambika Prasad Ray, Advocate

-Versus-

Panchanan Nayak, OAS, … Opposite Party/ The Tahasildar, Pattamundai Contemnor

Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

05.05.2026

01. 1. Alleging non-compliance of order dated 02.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C) (PIL) No.21223 of 2025, the contempt petition is filed with a prayer to punish the contemnor under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. It is submitted by Sri Ambika Prasad Ray, learned Advocate for the petitioners that as certain persons are selling fish on the road side by encroaching upon the Government land as a result of which waste water and garbage are indiscriminately thrown on the adjacent plots thereby causing air pollution, the writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation was filed. This Court on 02.12.2025 being apprised of the fact that the Tahasildar caused enquiry through Revenue Inspector whereby it is reported that the subject plot is free from any encroachment over the Government land, disposed of the writ petition.

Page 1 of 2

3. Though considering the submission and taking note of such report, the writ petition stood disposed of, the grievance of the petitioners, in fact, has not yet been redressed. The petitioners have filed the contempt petition stating that the encroachments are not removed and relying on photographs the learned Advocate submitted that the Government land in question is still under encroachment.

4. Having perused the photographs enclosed with the writ petition, this Court finds no encroachment, but one or two street vendors are selling fish in front of half-constructed structures. But it does not appear that they have encroached upon any portion of Government land by putting up any sort of structures causing hindrance to the public. However, such disputed questions cannot be decided in the writ petition as it is not discernible from photographs whether the portion shown to have been used by the vendor to sell fish does belong to the Government. The photographs do not reveal there is any encroachment on the road/Government land. Be that as it may, this Court does not perceive any deliberate or intentional disobedience in compliance with the order dated 02.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C)(PIL) No.21223 of 2025.

5. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT (SECY I/C) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-May-2026 12:19:16

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

Aswini

Page 2 of 2