Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 180 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. Pitambar Mallick

2014-03-19

B.N.MAHAPATRA, I.MAHANTY

body2014
ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Mohanty, the learned Advocate General on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party No. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 23/20.08.2013 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 754 of 2012 under Annexure-1 and also has sought for quashing of the contempt proceeding registered as C.P. No. 229 of 2013. Pursuant to the notices being issued in the present matter, the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has raised a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the present writ petition. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party No. 1, inter alia, has contended that the present contempt proceeding i.e. C.P. No. 229 of 2013 is a proceeding initiated under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Therefore, appeal thereof lies only to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, this Court does not possess the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Advocate General drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Sudhakar Prasad vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2001) SCC 516 and in particular the conclusion in Para-17, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to hold as follows:- "XXX While holding the proceeding under Section 17 of the Act the Tribunal remains a Tribunal and so would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution subject to the well-established rules of self-restraint governing the discretion of the High Court to interfere with the pending proceeding and upset the interim or interlocutory orders of the Tribunals, However, any order or decision of the Tribunal punishing for contempt shall be appealable only to the Supreme. Court within 60 days from the date of the order appealed against in view of the specific provision contained in Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, XXX." Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on para-23 of the said judgment which is quoted hereunder:- "23. For the foregoing reason the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. Rath, learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on para-23 of the said judgment which is quoted hereunder:- "23. For the foregoing reason the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. C.W.P. No. 34841 of 1998 filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh laying challenge to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with its own contempt is directed to be dismissed. The Tribunal shall now proceed ahead with the proceedings pending before it as per law. Contempt Case No. 1054 of 1998 filed before the High Court invoking its contempt jurisdiction is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal for being dealt with under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Complete record of the proceedings shall be transmitted by the High Court to the Tribunal. The appeals stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to the costs." On a reading of the aforesaid judgment, the issue regarding maintainability of the present proceeding is by now well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the present case, since the proceeding under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is pending before the Tribunal as on date, therefore, the writ petition challenging any order passed during the pendency of the contempt petition, is maintainable before the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution subject to the well established rules of self restraint. Therefore, in the present circumstance, we hold that this writ application is maintainable. Mr. Rath, the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 placed reliance on the original order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1064 of 2007. Learned Advocate General also placed reliance on various subsequent orders passed thereto as well as the various challenges made before this Court during pendency of the O.A. On prima facie view, we are of the considered opinion that merely because the High Court has entertained earlier challenges against the final order passed on the O.A. and has modified to some extent the orders passed thereon. However, the contempt proceeding initiated by the opposite party-Tribunal under which show cause notice has been sought for, ought to be allowed to continue. However, the contempt proceeding initiated by the opposite party-Tribunal under which show cause notice has been sought for, ought to be allowed to continue. The show cause reply may raise all such points as may be available in law and we remain confident that, in course of hearing of the contempt proceeding, the points raised on behalf of both the petitioner and the opposite party shall be heard and be adjudicated on its own merits. We expect that in such proceeding, the Tribunal shall do well, not to insist upon the appearance of the contemnor unless and until it statutorily become necessary. With the aforesaid observation and without expressing any views on the merits of the respective stands of the parties, the writ application stands disposed of. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Application disposed of.