Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 238 (ORI)

Subash Chandra Rath v. Narayan Mishra

2005-04-06

J.P.MISHRA, P.K.MOHANTY

body2005
ORDER 6.4.2005 — Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner alleges violation of the order of this Court dated 26.8.2002 passed in O.J.C.No. 9794 of 2000. The operative portion of the order reads thus : “We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioners be paid their salary components and arrear salary payable by the Governing Body of the College. Such salary components payable by the Governing Body of the college towards current salary will be paid forthwith and the arrear salary payable by the Governing Body of the College will be paid within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the Principal-cum-Secretary of the Governing Body of the Colege. The new Governing Body of the College will be approved by the Director of Higher Education, Orissa, within a period of two months from such approval, the new Governing Body will send the proposal for approval and grant-in-aid in respect of the petitioners to the Director of Higher Education, Orissa.” The opposite party has filed a show cause reply. It is admitted that this Court’s order was received by the opposite party-contemnor and, in turn, he consulted the Sub-Collector, Puri, who happens to be the President of the Governing Body. The President also advised the opposite party-contemnor to implement the order of the Court, but at this juncture, some other staff brought to the notice of the contemnor-opposite party that they have moved this Hon’ble Court for quashing the order dated 8.3.2000 passed by the then Director, Higher Education. Thus, the opposite party states that he remained under a bona fide impres¬sion that it would be better for him to wait. It is further submitted that the opposite party had paid the petitioner and other petitioners of O.J.C. No. 9794 of 2000 their current salary from September, 2002 till January, 2003. According to the contemnor, there is no deliberate nor wilful negligence on his part in making payment, but the delay has occurred on account of bona fide belief that this Court may re-consider its order in pending Review Petition No. 10 of 2003. By filing a Review Peti¬tion, the direction of the Court does not automatically get stayed or authorises the opposite party not to implement the order of this Court, unless the order is specifically stayed. By filing a Review Peti¬tion, the direction of the Court does not automatically get stayed or authorises the opposite party not to implement the order of this Court, unless the order is specifically stayed. Admittedly, no order of stay has been obtained by the opposite party. In the circumstances, we hold the opposite party guilty of contempt. Accordingly, issue notice of show cause within four weeks, as to why the opposite party shall not be appropriately punished in accordance with the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act for having violated the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid case. No notice need be sent, since the opposite party is appearing through a learned counsel. A copy of the show cause ntice be served on the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party by day-after-tomorrow. Ordered accordingly.