JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This contempt proceeding has been initiated against the contemnors for willful violation of the order of this Court dated 6.10.2010 passed in Misc. Case No. 16177/2010 arising out of W.P.(C) No. 17272/2010. 2. The brief facts leading to this proceeding are that one Mrs. Dipti Mitra wife of Late Brigadier Ajit Kumar Mitra aged about 80 years, of Bhubaneswar filed W.P.(C) No. 17272/2010 with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus to the opposite parties particularly opposite party nos. 1 & 2 to stop the construction over the suit land in question, i.e., Sabik Plot No. 4766 under Sabik Khata No. 1180 situated in Sabik Mouza-West Badagada, Bhubaneswar of area Ac.0.500 decs, of homestead land, which now corresponds to Hal Mouza-Goutam Nagar, Hal Khata No. 1337, Hal Plot No. 483 with recorded area of Ac.0.488 decs. as per the current settlement of 1995, to direct the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to make an official measurement of the suit land of the petitioner and to demarcate the road and give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking any coercive steps for eviction/demolition in respect of the suit land. 3. This Court by its order dated 6.10.2010 while issuing notice to the opposite parties passed the following orders. W.P.(C) No. 17272 OF 2010 & M.C. NO. 16177/2010 Heard. Issue notice to opposite party nos. 1 to 4 by registered Post with A.D. Requisites shall be filed within seven days. Let three copies of the brief be served on the Learned Counsel for the State appearing for opposite party nos. 5 to 7. Put up this matter on 25th October, 2010. Perused the letter dated 15.9.2010 issued by the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. It is stated that despite the undertaking of the petitioner that in case it is found during the measurement that she has encroached any portion of the Government land, she will remove the structure within a suitable given time, it is alleged that the Municipality without following due procedure is carving out a road inside the petitioner's land. STATE OF ORISSA V. TARAKANTA MOHAPATRA (B.P. DAS, J.) As an interim measure, we restrain opposite party nos. STATE OF ORISSA V. TARAKANTA MOHAPATRA (B.P. DAS, J.) As an interim measure, we restrain opposite party nos. 1 to 3 from raising any construction/development on the land of the petitioner, i.e., an area of Ac.0.500 decimals of Gharabari Kissam in Sabik Plot No. 4766 under Sabik Khata No. 1180 situated in Sabik Mouza-West Badagada, Bhubaneswar, which now corresponds to a recorded area of Ac.0.488 decimals in Hal Plot no. 483 under Hal Khata No. 1337 of Hal Mouza Goutam Nagar, Bhubaneswar, without going for fresh measurement of the area in presence of the petitioner or her representative through an Amin deputed from the Civil Courts, for which requisition shall be made by O.P.3 to the District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. Sd./- B.P. Das, J. Sd./- S. Panda, J. The Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, Bhubaneswar, Dist.-Khurda, the Recovery Officer, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, Bhubaneswar, Dist.-Khurda and Sri Nrupesh Kumar Nayak, Corporator, Ward No. 52, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, Bhubaneswar, Dist.-Khurda have been arrayed as O.Ps.2, 3 & 4 respectively. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid land was acquired on 12.3.1936 on the basis of a lease granted by the Collector, Puri in favour of late Dukhishyam Mitra, the father-in-law of the petitioner for residential purpose and the lease was continuing in peaceful possession thereof by constructing pucca boundary wall up to the height of 5 feet to 6 feet on all sides and growing different types of permanent trees. After the death of the petitioner's father-in-law, the aforesaid property was partitioned amongst his sons and the said property was put into the share of her husband, Late Ajit Kumar Mitra, who constructed his residential building on eastern half of the said plot and the western half remained vacant and it was used for plantation of different kinds of trees. The husband of the petitioner died on 27.1.2004 leaving behind the petitioner and she was residing there peacefully without any disturbance. The aforesaid plot is surrounded by roads on three sides and only the western side road is now occupied by the members of a Youth Club namely, "Star Club", which is patronized by local politicians and is situated on plot no. 509. The aforesaid plot is surrounded by roads on three sides and only the western side road is now occupied by the members of a Youth Club namely, "Star Club", which is patronized by local politicians and is situated on plot no. 509. On 23.8.2010, some staff of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation visited the locality and without giving any prior notice to the petitioner and without measurement, put markings on the North-West and South-West boundary walls measuring 17 feet X 108 feet length claiming that the said area belongs to Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and attempted to demolish the boundary walls of the petitioner. INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES (2011) Apprehending such action, the petitioner filed a suit being C.S. No. 1479/2010 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar praying for permanent injunction against the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and the Civil Judge vide order dated 4.9.2010 directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit land till filing of objection and adjourned the matter to 22.9.2010 and the said status quo order was subsequently extended till 31.9.2010. The said order was passed in presence of the Learned Counsel for the parties. While the matter stood thus, on the request of the petitioner, the Secretary, Rajya Sainik Board, vide communication dated 25.8.2010 requested the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation to re-assess the matter and give reasonable time to shift her boundary wall in case any land has been encroached upon by the petitioner. Added to this, on 31.8.2010 the petitioner made a representation to the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation with a prayer to make an official measurement of the suit property in her presence so as to ascertain the accurate measurement of the land recorded in her favour. But considering the said representation, on 15.9.2010 the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation instructed its Recovery Officer to ensure proper demarcation of the plot before any eviction. But the opposite party-authorities demolished the boundary wall of the petitioner violating the order of status quo of the suit land passed by the Civil Court on 4.9.2010. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner challenging the said demolition approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 17272/2010 and this Court by order dated 6.10.2010 while issuing notice to the opposite parties passed restraint order, which is quoted above. On 16.5.2011 when this matter was taken up, Mr. S.K. Padhi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that despite this Court's order dated 6.10.2010 restraining O.Ps. On 16.5.2011 when this matter was taken up, Mr. S.K. Padhi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that despite this Court's order dated 6.10.2010 restraining O.Ps. 1 to 3 from raising any construction/development on the land of the petitioner, without measuring, the land in question, construction over the same was continuing by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, for which we directed the Recovery Officer, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, to remain present in this Court on 19th May, 2011 at 7.30 a.m. and inform this Court whether the allegation made by the petitioner was correct. On the said date, Miss Sumita Behera, Recovery Officer, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, appeared in person and filed an affidavit. But despite notice issued, Sri Nrupesh Kumar Nayak, Corporator, Ward No. 52, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation did not appear nor was any counsel on his behalf present. STATE OF ORISSA V. TARAKANTA MOHAPATRA (B.P. DAS, J.) 5. The affidavit filed by Miss Sumita Behera on 19.5.2011 is reproduced herein below. I, Miss Sumita Behera, aged about 43 years, D/o. Late Ramakrishna Behera, presently working as Recovery Offier, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, At/P/O.-Bhubaneswar, Dist.-Khurda, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows. a. That, I am the opp. Party no. 3 in this case. b. That, I have gone through the orders passed by the Hon'ble Court on 6.10.10, 21.2.11 and 16.5.11 in W.P.(C) No. 17272/10. c. That, in the above orders this Hon'ble Court as an interim measure have restrained the opp. Parties no. 1 to 3 from raising any construction/development without going for fresh measurement of the area in presence of the petitioner of her representative through an Amin deputed from the Civil Court for which requisition shall be made by the opp. Party no. 3, the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. d. That, soon after communication of the first order dated 6.10.10 to the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation on 5.1.11 requisition to the learned District Judge, Khurda for the above purpose was made on 10.1.11. On 3.2.11, on the intimation of the learned District Judge, Khurda to deposit Rs. 1,000/- towards deputing an Amin, the said amount was deposited on 25.2.11, with the Registrar of District Judge, Khurda. Thereafter again learned District Judge by the letter dated 8.3.11, intimated the counsel of BMC to supply the village map and Record of Right pertaining to the disputed land. 1,000/- towards deputing an Amin, the said amount was deposited on 25.2.11, with the Registrar of District Judge, Khurda. Thereafter again learned District Judge by the letter dated 8.3.11, intimated the counsel of BMC to supply the village map and Record of Right pertaining to the disputed land. Thereafter, the village map along with a copy of ROR was filed before the learned District Judge on 10.3.11, but the learned District Judge again asked the counsel for BMC to supply the original/certified copy of the ROR vide letter dated 22.3.11. e. That, upon receipt of the above letter from the learned District Judge, Khurda, the Deputy Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation vide his letter dated 28.3.11 requested the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to supply the certified copy of the ROR so as to take necessary steps to re-measure the disputed land through a civil court's Amin as directed. INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES (2011) f. That, the certified copy of the ROR pertaining to the disputed land was received from the office of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on 13.5.11 and filed with the Registrar of learned District Judge on 17.5.11, awaiting deputation of an Amin from the learned District Judge, Khurda. In the above circumstances though with due regard to the interim order of the Hon'ble Court, sincere steps have been taken, but for the above reasons, re-measurement of the disputed land could not be done and as soon as the Amin will be deputed from the learned District Judge, Khurda and measurement shall be done immediately for which some more time may be granted for the purpose. g. That, with regard to the allegation made in respect of raising some construction/development over the land in question, it is ascertained from the Engineering Division-II of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, that proposals for improvement of internal roads in different wards of Bhubaneswar including the internal roads of Nageswar Tangi (inclusive of the disputed land) was placed before the contracts committee of BMC on 28.4.11 for its approval. But as on date, no approval of such proposal has been made by the contracts committee for which there is no occasion for issue of work order the disputed land and no construction/development has been made over the plot in question by the Corporation. But as on date, no approval of such proposal has been made by the contracts committee for which there is no occasion for issue of work order the disputed land and no construction/development has been made over the plot in question by the Corporation. h. That, after receiving the order dated 16.5.11 passed by the Hon'ble Court, a report was sought for from the Executive Engineer, Division-II of BMC and he reported that since there is an order of stay over land in question the same was excluded from the list of construction and no work order has been issued for execution of the work by the Engineering Division. The Executive Engineer further reported that he ascertained from the Jr. Engineer that the office is not involved in any type of execution/construction in that portion of road which is sub judiced. But some execution of work was done on 14th and 15th which were holidays, of which the office was unaware. i. That, in such circumstances the Commissioner has decided to refer the matter for investigation by the State Crime Branch as to how the work was executed in the absence of approval by the Contract Committee and issue of work order. STATE OF ORISSA V. TARAKANTA MOHAPATRA (B.P. DAS, J.) True copies of the report of Executive Engineer, Division-II, BMC dated 18.5.11 and Junior Engineer, BMC dated 17.5.11 are annexed hereunto as Annexure-3/1 & 3/2 respectively. j. That, for the above reasons, the opp. Parties no. 1 to 3 have is no manner violated the Hon'ble Court's order. Xxx In the additional affidavit filed by Miss Sumati Behera on 11.3.2011, it is clearly indicated that the order of this Court dated 6.10.2010 reached the Office of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation on 5.1.2011. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by O.Ps.2 & 3 through Sri Vishal Kumar Dev, Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, stating therein that a joint eviction squad was constituted consisting of General Administration Department, Bhubaneswar Development Authority and Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation for the purpose of eviction and demolition of unauthorized constructions and accordingly, unauthorized constructions were demolished. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by O.Ps.2 & 3 through Sri Vishal Kumar Dev, Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, stating therein that a joint eviction squad was constituted consisting of General Administration Department, Bhubaneswar Development Authority and Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation for the purpose of eviction and demolition of unauthorized constructions and accordingly, unauthorized constructions were demolished. It may be stated here that we are not dealing with the merit of the writ petition, which was filed after the demolition of the boundary wall and as the order was not to make any construction over the property in question during pendency of the writ petition, we have examined in this proceeding whether the order of this Court restraining the O.Ps. from making any construction over the suit land has been violated. As the affidavit of Miss Sumita Behera prima facie revealed that there is violation of this Court's order dated 6.10.2010, this Court directed initiation of contempt proceeding against Miss Sumita Behera, Recovery Officer, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. On the allegation of the petitioner that O.P.4-Sri Nrupesh Kumar Nayak, who is the Corporator of Ward No. 52 of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, is responsible for making the construction with the help of the officials of the Corporation, we directed to initiate contempt proceeding against said Sri Nayak and Miss Sumati Behera fixing their personal appearance to 21.6.2011 before this Court. On 21.6.2011 while accepting the show cause reply of Miss Sumita Behera, we dispensed with her personal appearance and directed to issue notice of contempt to Sri Tarakanta Mohapatra, Executive Engineer, Sk. Nashrulla, Assistant Engineer and Sri Satya Sai Baba Subudhi, Jr. Engineer of the Corporation by special messenger fixing their personal appearance before this Court to 27.6.2011 but no notice was issued to Sri Nrupesh Kumar Nayak, Corporator, as he was personally present in Court. INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES (2011) On 27.6.2011, all the contemnors appeared and filed their respective show cause replies. Sri Sk. Nashrulla, Asst. Executive Engineer, Divn.-II, while offering unconditional apology in his affidavit dated 27.6.2011 has stated that on 25.1.2011 he joined the Ward and could know about the order of this Court on 14.5.2011 after he reached the site when the work was almost completed except the finishing layer. Sri Sk. Nashrulla, Asst. Executive Engineer, Divn.-II, while offering unconditional apology in his affidavit dated 27.6.2011 has stated that on 25.1.2011 he joined the Ward and could know about the order of this Court on 14.5.2011 after he reached the site when the work was almost completed except the finishing layer. According to him, the construction was undertaken and completed within two days, i.e., 14th and 15th May, 2011, i.e., during second Saturday and Sunday and according to him, he intimated regarding such unauthorized construction to the higher authority, i.e., Executive Engineer. He has also given a date chart furnishing the following details;- i) September, 2010: Eviction was conducted and the Corporator gave proposal for construction of the said road. ii) 6.10.2010: The Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 17272 of 2010 passed an order: As an interim measure, we restrain opposite party nos. 1 to 3 from raising any construction/development on the land of the petitioner in plot no. xxx. iii) 27.10.2010: Land clearance was taken from land branch for road work. iv) 9.11.2010: Estimate was prepared v) 25.11.2010: Commissioner approved the estimate after technical sanction of the Executive Engineer. vi) 9.12.2010: Tender was floated vii) 21.12.2010: It was placed before the Works Committee. viii) 29.12.2010: After recommendation of the Works Committee it was put up before Corporation and the Corporation approved. ix) January, 2011: Notice No. 1 kept in-charge of Ward No. 52 x) 28.4.2011: Tender document was put-up before the Contract Committee. xi) 14.5.11 & 15.5.11 : Constructions undertaken and completed. xii) 18.5.2011: Intimation by deponents to Executive Engineer and on the same date it was intimated to the Recovery Officer. STATE OF ORISSA V. TARAKANTA MOHAPATRA (B.P. DAS, J.) Sk. Nashrulla in his reply to show cause notice has also stated that he was not aware if the Contract Committee had approved the construction. No work order or agreement for execution was issued to the notice of either of the deponents. 7. Sri Tarakanta Mohapatra, Executive Engineer, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, has filed his show cause reply, in paragraph-5 whereof he has stated that the Standing Committee on contract in its resolution dated 27.5.2011 vide item no. 11 resolved not to undertake any construction over the disputed plot of the petitioner. The copy of such resolution dated 27.5.2011 is annexed hereto as Annexure-B/2, which shows that as the matter was pending before the Civil Jude (Sr. 11 resolved not to undertake any construction over the disputed plot of the petitioner. The copy of such resolution dated 27.5.2011 is annexed hereto as Annexure-B/2, which shows that as the matter was pending before the Civil Jude (Sr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar, till a decision is taken no construction shall be made. In paragraph-6 of the reply, it is stated that no work order was ever issued in respect of the work at serial no. 25 of the tender notice. On 14.5.2011, the Executive Engineer came to know from the Junior Engineer that the work in the disputed plot was going on in presence of the Corporator of Ward No. 52, for which he instructed the Junior Engineer that no construction work should be undertaken in the disputed plot in view of the interim order of this Court dated 6.10.2010. So he was under the bona fide impression that the construction had been stopped. On the next date, i.e., 15.5.2011, he had to rush to the proposed Solid Waste Treatment Plant site at Bhuasuni, Chandaka to monitor fire that was broken out at the plant site and was not aware whether the work was stopped. To this incident, an enquiry was caused by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. The record of enquiry was produced before us. Before going through the said record, let us see the stand taken by Sri Nrupesh Kumar Nayak, Corporator, Ward-52, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. 8. In paragraph-6 of the show cause affidavit filed on 27.6.2011, Sri Nrupesh Kumar Nayak, Corporator, has taken a stand that in the order of this Court dated 6.10.2010, there is no restraint order against him and the substance of omission and commission alleged by the petitioner is against the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. The Corporation has entered into contest. He is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. It is also stated that though notice in the writ petition was issued to him in his office address, there being a communication gap, it could not be served upon him within the time stipulated and after receipt of the notice, he consulted his counsel, who opined that the substance of allegation was to be taken care of by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, for which he did not appear and INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES (2011) participate in the day-to-day proceeding of the writ petition. His non-appearance in the writ petition cannot be construed to be violation of Court's order. In paragraphs-10 & 11 of the show cause affidavit, the Corporator has stated that grant of any relief in favour of the petitioner would amount to put a premium on dishonest activities, for which the petitioner should be saddled with cost and also be proceeded under Penal Law for furnishing false statement. The Corporator has filed a further affidavit on 15.7.2011 taking a Stand that the order of this Court dated 6.10.2010 was never within his knowledge till 15.5.2011. There was no restraint order against him but it was against O.Ps. 1 to 3 of the writ petition. It is further stated that he is neither a decision making authority nor executing authority, but the petitioner is an encroacher of the public road. The decision was taken by the Corporation to take out a road on plot no. 506. On measurement when it came to the notice that the petitioner had encroached a portion of the road, the encroached portion was removed with due notice to the petitioner. The Corporator has no involvement in the decision taken by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation nor is he executing the decision of the Corporation. There is no unimpeachable evidence on record to indict the Corporation. The allegation made by the petitioner that the Corporator in connivance with the O.Ps. is forcibly constructing the road on the disputed land and if it is allowed, the petitioner will suffer irreparably, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The aforesaid show cause affidavits reveal two different things. First of all, Sri Nrupesh Kumar Nayak, Corporator, has avoided the service of notice issued in the writ petition. Secondly, on receipt of such notice by him, may be by the advice of his lawyer or anybody or on his own volition, he preferred not to appear and participate in the proceeding initially. He has justified the construction over the property relating to which an order of stay was passed on the ground that it was an interim order. Be that as it may, from the tenor of the affidavits of the Corporator shows that he was conscious of this Court's proceeding and the orders passed therein. He has justified the demolition as well as construction. Be that as it may, from the tenor of the affidavits of the Corporator shows that he was conscious of this Court's proceeding and the orders passed therein. He has justified the demolition as well as construction. We are not concerned with the demolition part, as our order was not to make any construction over the land in dispute during pendency of the writ petition.. 10. Let us see the records produced before us relating to the enquiry conducted by the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, the findings of which read thus :- STATE OF ORISSA V. TARAKANTA MOHAPATRA (B.P. DAS, J.) 1. The Engineering division was aware of the Hon'ble High Court stay order on construction of the road from "Star Club to Dibyaprabha Appartment". The information of the stay order was received by the Executive Engineer on 6.1.2011 and he in turn communicated the same to the Asst. Engineer & Jr. Engineer. 2. By 6.1.2011, tender for construction of this road was already invited i.e. on 9.12.2010. As per the statement of the Executive Engineer, tenders are invited in anticipation of approval of the Contracts Committee and subsequently if it is not approved, the tender is cancelled. 3. The tender documents were put up to the Contracts Committee on 28.4.2011 which was discussed on 28.5.2011 and keeping in view the stay order of the Hon'ble High Court, the contract was not approved. 4. Construction of the same road was carried out on 14th and 15th of May, 2011 with the knowledge of Executive Engineer Division-II, Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer and the Ward Corporator. 5. It was a collective decision of Executive Engineer, Asst. Engineer & Jr. Engineer to start the work before issue of the work order. 6. Since the statements are contradictory in nature it can not be established as to who constructed the road and what action was exactly taken to stop the construction. 7. However, it is apparent that lack of supervision and control on part of the Jr. Engineer, Asst. Engineer & Executive Engineer resulted in construction of the road violating the stay order of Hon'ble High Court. 8. Thus by not preventing the, construction of the road and by not taking action against violation of the orders of Hon'ble, which could have been done, the Ward Corporator, the Executive Engineer, Division-II, Asst. Engineer, Jr. Engineer, Asst. Engineer & Executive Engineer resulted in construction of the road violating the stay order of Hon'ble High Court. 8. Thus by not preventing the, construction of the road and by not taking action against violation of the orders of Hon'ble, which could have been done, the Ward Corporator, the Executive Engineer, Division-II, Asst. Engineer, Jr. Engineer became parties to the act of disobedience of the order of the Hon'ble High Court. The Recovery Officer has no role to play in construction work of the Corporation and she was therefore not involved in this operation. INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES (2011) Sd./- City Engineer Sd./- Deputy Commissioner In the show cause affidavit filed on 19.5.2011, Miss Sumita Behera, Recovery Officer, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, has stated that no approval for improvement of internal roads in different wards of Bhubaneswar including the internal roads of Nageswar Tangi (inclusive of the disputed land) has been made by the Contracts Committee, for which there is no occasion for issue of work order for construction over the disputed land and no construction has been made over the plot in question by the Corporation but the Executive Engineer has reported that execution of some work was done on 14.5.2011 and 15.5.2011, which were holidays. Thereafter, the Commissioner referred the matter for investigation by the Crime Branch. In paragraph-2.2 of the show cause affidavit filed on 27.6.2011, Sk., Nasrulla, Assistant Engineer, Division-II, has stated as follows. 2.2-Notice no. 2 learnt about the said order in January, 2011 and was never aware who and when the construction was undertaken and on 14.5.2011 after reaching the spot, he found the Corporator on the spot and intimated him about the stay order passed by the Hon'ble Court. In the show cause reply filed on 27.6.2011, Sri Tarakanta Mohapatra, Executive Engineer, has disclosed that it is the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer, who should have stopped the construction work. We find, the blame-game was started after initiation of this contempt proceeding. The Executive Engineer blames the Assistant Engineer and the Assistant Engineer blames the Corporator. In the show cause reply filed on 27.6.2011, Sri Tarakanta Mohapatra, Executive Engineer, has disclosed that it is the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer, who should have stopped the construction work. We find, the blame-game was started after initiation of this contempt proceeding. The Executive Engineer blames the Assistant Engineer and the Assistant Engineer blames the Corporator. The contents of the statement made by Sri Nrupesh Kumar Nayak, Corporator, in the record of enquiry, which was produced before this Court, by the Corporation, are as follows :- I am the Corporator of Ward No. 52, there was no stay order of the Hon'ble High Court over construction of the road from Star Club to Dibya Prabha Apartment (Road Land no. 506 khata no. 2279) when I proposed for construction of the said road during October-2010. Tender call notice was issued on 9.12.2010 for construction of this road by Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. The tender of this road along with four other roads in my ward was finalized and placed before the Contract Committee on 28.5.2011. Pending finalization of the contract the work of all the proposed construction started on 1st STATE OF ORISSA V. TARAKANTA MOHAPATRA (B.P. DAS, J.) week of May, 2011 by the instruction of the Engineering Division. The Asst. Engineer, Jr. Engineer and other technical staff supervised the construction of all the roads under construction in my ward. This particular portion of this road was constructed on 14th May, 2011. I am not aware who was the contractor, but since this is a construction in my ward, I was aware of the construction. Jr. Engineer, Mr. Subudhi informed that there was a stay order of the Hon'ble High Court and since, I was present on the spot on 14.5.2011, I immediately checked the matter with the Executive Engineer, Divn.-II, who said that he was not aware of any such court order and he even said that he was hearing about it from me for the first time. He further said that the work could go ahead and the construction was carried out in the presence of the Asst. Engineer & Jr. Engineer as per the instruction of the Executive Engineer, Divn.-II. Pausing for a moment, we can confidently say that the Corporator, Sri Nrupesh Kumar Nayak, was informed with the restraint order of this Court by the Jr. Engineer, Mr. Engineer & Jr. Engineer as per the instruction of the Executive Engineer, Divn.-II. Pausing for a moment, we can confidently say that the Corporator, Sri Nrupesh Kumar Nayak, was informed with the restraint order of this Court by the Jr. Engineer, Mr. Subudhi, and he was aware of the order of this Court but he proceeded with the work. This clearly proves his presence in the site of construction but also by his own admission, his participation in the progress of the work despite being informed about the interim order of this Court. If he had scant regard to the Court's order, he could have stopped the work the moment he was informed about the order of this Court. The statement of Sri Tarakanta Mohapatra, Executive Engineer, Divn.-II is re-produced here. I am aware of the stay order of Hon'ble High Court on construction of road on disputed portion from Star Club to Dibyaprabha Apartment of Ward No. 52. I came to know about it on 6.1.2011 after receiving the copy of the Hon'ble High Court order from legal branch. I instructed the Asst. Engineer and Jr. Engineer that no construction work would be taken up on the disputed plot. I have not made any site visit after that. Tender was invited for construction of this road on 9.12.2010. The proposal was recommended by the Works Committee on 20.12.2010 and it was approved by the Corporation on 29.12.2010. However, the tender was called on 9.12.2010 in anticipation of approval of the Standing Committee. As per practice this is done to save delay and in case approval is not received, the tender is to be cancelled. On 28.4.2011, it was sent to the Contract Committee with a noting for approval with reference to the order of Hon'ble High Court. However, the matter INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES (2011) came up for discussion in the Contract Committee on 28.5.2011 and the Committee recommended that the work shall be withheld till finalization of the Hon'ble High Court case. I got the news when Recovery Officer telephoned me on 16.5.2011 that the work has been taken up on the disputed portion of the road, where there was stay order of Hon'ble High Court. No work order has been issued for this work. I do not how the work was taken up. I also do not know who took up the work. No work order has been issued for this work. I do not how the work was taken up. I also do not know who took up the work. On 14.5.2011 the Jr. Engineer telephoned me and told me that was a stay order on a portion of a road and the work was going on. I told him no work should be taken upon if it is sub judice. I did not ask him which the road was. I cannot say about other roads of Ward No. 52 on which there is a stay order. The Corporator called me up and told me that the Jr. Engineer was stopping the work on a road saying that there was stay order and I told him that if it was so the work could not be taken up. I did not ask him which the road was. I had asked the Asst. Engineer & Jr. Engineer not to carry out any work without work order while visiting the work of one such road, I had asked to stop the work however, I did not issue any letter/instruction to stop such work. I had said that if any body working without work order, let him continue and asked the A.E. & J.E. not to go to the site. I have not intimated this to the authority because there is no such procedure to stop such work. The statement of Sk. Nasrulla is re-produced here. I know that there is a stay order for construction of these stretch of road which a part of the road from "Star Club to Dibyaprabha Apartment" I took charge of SDO of Ward No. 52 on 25.1.2011. I first visited the ward on 15.4.2011. I was not aware that there was stay order of the Hon'ble High Court till 14.5.2011. Jr. Engineer, Sri Subudhi called me up on 14.5.2011 and told me that there was a stay order but the work was going on. By the time I reached the site on 14.5.2011 the work was almost complete except the finishing layer, I also told the Corporator who was present on the spot that there was a stay of Hon'ble High Court and showed him the copy of the order and said that the work should not be carried out then I left the site. I informed the matter to the Executive Engineer on 15.5.2011 and he did not give any instruction to me on this issue. The relevant portion of the statement of Sri Satya Sai Baba is also reproduced here. STATE OF ORISSA V. TARAKANTA MOHAPATRA (B.P. DAS, J.) xxx The above said road was taken up for construction on 14/15 May, 2011. I was aware that there was a stay order on this portion of the road which was communicated to me by the Executive Engineer, Divn.-II on 6.1.2011. On 14th May, 2011, I reached the spot and told the Corporator who was present on the spot not to construct that portion as there was stay order of Hon'ble High Court. Then the Corporator spoke to Executive Engineer Divn.-II over phone and told me that the Executive Engineer told him that "I have not asked you to stop the construction" I do not know what Jr. Engineer is saying, " I am not aware of any stay order I also contacted Executive Engineer and informed him that the work was going on despite the stay order, however the Executive Engineer remained silent and did not give any clear instruction. Same day in the evening myself and the Asst. Engineer again went to the site and showed the court order to the Corporator. However, he said that since the Executive Engineer has told him to continue the work, the work went ahead. The aforesaid clearly shows how this Court's order dated 6.10.2010 has been blatantly, deliberately and willfully violated by two officers of the Corporation and an elected Corporator. 11. Mr. B. Roy, Learned Counsel for contemnor no. 1-Sri Tarakanta Mohapatra, Executive Engineer, relies upon a decision of the apex Court in Parents Association of Students v. M.A. Khan & Another, AIR 2008 SC (Suppl.) 1138, wherein it is held that a person if not a party to the lis and no direction having been issued against him, a contempt petition against him would not lie. Whether an exceptional case has been made out against him is yet to be determined. Here is a case where in the writ petition, order of restraint was passed against the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, its Commissioner and Recovery Officer. Contemnor no. 1-Sri Tarakanta Mohapatra, Executive Engineer, Sk. Nashrulla, Assistant Engineer and Sri Satya Sai Baba Subudhi, Jr. Whether an exceptional case has been made out against him is yet to be determined. Here is a case where in the writ petition, order of restraint was passed against the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, its Commissioner and Recovery Officer. Contemnor no. 1-Sri Tarakanta Mohapatra, Executive Engineer, Sk. Nashrulla, Assistant Engineer and Sri Satya Sai Baba Subudhi, Jr. Engineer are the officers of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and they were executing the construction work being aware of the order of this Court, for which they cannot be said to be third parties. Sri Nrupesh Kumar Nayak, Corporator, is also a party to this proceeding and he cannot be said to be a third party. We may also refer to the decision in S. Sanyasi Appa Rao v. Officer-in-Charge of the Amadalavalasa Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd., 1968 M.L.J. (Cri.) 531, wherein it is held thus :- INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES (2011) ...Every person who, with the knowledge of those orders, prevents any person from giving effect to them, or prevents or obstructs the execution of those orders or acts in contravention of those orders, commits contempt. It is not necessary that the prohibitory orders should have been served upon the party against whom they have been granted nor is it necessary to direct third parties to desist from interfering with the execution of prohibitory orders. It is sufficient if they know and act contrary to them. Sri Nayak also did not show any remorse for his action. Though apology has been tendered by Sri Tarakanta Mohapatra, Executive Engineer, Sk. Nashrulla, Assistant Engineer and Sri Satya Sai Baba Subudhi, Jr. Engineer, the same is evasive and not moved by a genuine feeling of remorse. So the word "apology" has been used by them as a convenient device to escape the punishment. In their show cause affidavits, there are both justification and apology and those are incompatible. When apology is not a free and frank confession of their guilt indicating a penitent attitude on their part, an attempt to justify their conduct under the cover of bona fide, a haulting, hesitating and vacillating apology deserves to be rejected and thrown out (See-State v. Krishna Madho, AIR 1952 ALI. 86. 12. There is no doubt that the present is a case of contumacious and a willful disobedience of the orders of the Court. 86. 12. There is no doubt that the present is a case of contumacious and a willful disobedience of the orders of the Court. There is neither repentance nor a bona fide attempt to purge the contempt. On the other hand, there is every effort to subvert the process of the Court and to interfere with it substantially. This brazen conduct on the part of the contemnors has brought the Court and its process in ridicule, creating disrespect for its orders. The conduct of the contemnors, therefore, deserves severe punishment. In our considered opinion, there is willful disobedience of this Court's order, which has been proved beyond doubt as the contemnors have the knowledge of the said order and proceeded with the construction work. Moreover, the affidavit of the contemnor-Sri Nrupesh Kumar Nayak, Corporator, shows that he has no remorse for his act of disobedience of this Court's order and the brazen manner, in which he has conducted himself in the entire episode, this Court has sufficient reason to take strict view in the matter and to impose appropriate punishment. In the case of Satyabrata Biswas and others Vs. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and others the apex Court has held that order of injunction or an order for preservation status quo cannot be circumvented by the parties with impunity, who cannot expect the Court to confer its blessing upon the violators. The party cannot gain an advantage in derogation to the rights of the parties, who were litigating originally. STATE OF ORISSA V. TARAKANTA MOHAPATRA (B.P. DAS, J.) 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we reject the show cause affidavits filed by the contemnors and find all the contemnors guilty for willful disobedience of this Court's order dated 6.10.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No. 17272/2010 and are accordingly convicted u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act except the contemnor-Miss Sumita Behera, Recovery Officer of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, as nothing has been proved against her, for which her affidavit has been accepted and the contempt proceeding against her is dropped. The contemnors, Sri Tarakanta Mohapatra, Sk. Nashrulla and Sri Satya Sai Baba Subudhi are sentenced to undergo for simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days each. The contemnors, Sri Tarakanta Mohapatra, Sk. Nashrulla and Sri Satya Sai Baba Subudhi are sentenced to undergo for simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days each. So far as it relates to the contemnor-Sri Nrupesh Kumar Nayak, the facts as narrated above would show the manner, in which he conducted himself that too he has tried to mislead this Court by giving an affidavit, which is contrary to the stand taken before the authority while facing the enquiry. Any leniency or sympathy to this contemnor would encourage lawlessness and no society can exist without laws and laws have no meaning if they cannot be enforced. The Courts are established to administer justice. There should be zero tolerance to disobedience of the orders of the Court. This contemnor is a political person and representative of people and his conduct shows that he is of impression that law can be disregarded and disobeyed without any consequence. In this regard, we may quote a portion of the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in case of Court on its Court on its Own Motion Vs. J.R. Gangwani and Others, . An impression especially amongst the well-to-do sections of the society that law can be disobeyed or disregarded with impunity or without any adverse consequence flowing needs to be dispelled. this Court sincerely wants to dispel the impression of the contemnor that he can do anything and get away with it. The punishment of this contemnor and sentence are in public interest and it will have the curative effect. No leniency in attitude should be expected from this Court. Accordingly, the contemnor-Sri Nrupesh Kumar Nayak, Corporator, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. All the contemnors are committed to prison.