Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 543 (ORI)

Gobardhan Prasad Dalai v. State of Odisha

2014-09-01

BISWANATH RATH

body2014
Judgment Biswanath Rath, J. Heard Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Das, Additional Government Advocate and Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3. 2. By filing the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for following directions : “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opposite parties to show cause as to why they shall not be directed the salary of the petitioner w.e.f.1.6.1982 to 1.6.1985 and 1.6.1985 to 1.6.1990 with a consequential benefits; And if the opposite parties do not file cause or show insufficient cause a writ of mandamus be issued and commanding the opposite parties to release the salary of the petitioner from 1.6.1982 to 1.6.1995 and 1.6.1985 to 1.6.1990, for the consequential financial benefit within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court; And further be pleased to direct any other appropriate order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;” 3. During the course of hearing, it was brought to my notice that the parties were also litigating in a previous litigation vide OJC No.2304 of 1992. On perusal of the records of OJC No.2304 of 1992, it appears that the present petitioner was the petitioner no.1 in the said case. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14.05.1992 which runs as follows:- “4. 14.5.92. It is agreed by the learned counsel for the both sides that this case is covered by the decision of this Court in Madhab Charan Mishra-v-State of Orissa, (O.J.C. No.3705/87 disposed of on 9.8.1991. This petition is, therefore, disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in the aforesaid case. The U.G.C. scale, however, be made available to petitioners 2 and 4 only ………………………….. S/d/-(B.L. Hansaria, C.J.) …………………….. Sd/-(K.C. J. Ray, J.)” 4. After the disposal of the previous writ petition, the petitioner moved Contempt Case No.57 of 1993 alleging violation of the direction of this Court dated 14.05.1992 OCR M.C. No.57 of 1993 was disposed of by final order dated 23.06.1994 as reflected herein below:- “4. 23.06.94 By not complying with the order passed by this Court, the opposite parties have rendered themselves liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. We would have admitted the matter and passed on appropriate order awarding punishment upon both the opposite parties. 23.06.94 By not complying with the order passed by this Court, the opposite parties have rendered themselves liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. We would have admitted the matter and passed on appropriate order awarding punishment upon both the opposite parties. However, to give them an opportunity to comply with the order passed by this Court, we direct them to see that payment is made to the petitioner within one month from today. If no payment is made within the time granted now, a serious view of the matter shall be taken and a suo motu contempt proceeding shall be initiated against them and an appropriate order shall be passed regarding punishment. With this direction, the contempt proceeding is disposed of” 5. After disposal of the aforesaid contempt petition, since the opposite parties fail to comply the direction within the time frame, the opposite parties in the Original Criminal Misc. Case No.57 of 1993 filed Misc. Case requesting extension of time for further compliance of the order passed in OCR M.C. No.57 of 1993. The Misc. Case was disposed of with an order of rejection by order dated 31.08.1994. This Court exercising suo motu power vide order dated 31.08.1994 directed to issue notice to the opposite party nos.1 and 2 calling upon them to show-cause as to why they shall not be punished under the Contempt of the Court’s Act. The matter was taken up thereafter on 18.09.1995. As it appears from the order-sheet the aforesaid proceeding was initiated, by use of suo motu powers, is still pending. Pending disposal of the aforesaid contempt petition, the petitioner filed Original Criminal Misc. Case No.144 of 1994 alleging therein violation of the order dated 23.06.1994 passed in the Original Criminal Misc. Case No.57 of 1993. This contempt petition was taken up on 22.08.1995 on which date after hearing the parties in a Division Bench recorded that the direction issued by this Court in the order passed on 26.03.1994 in Original Criminal Misc. Case No.57 of 1993 has not been complied with and after recording displeasure for noncompliance of the order dated 23.06.1994 directed for appearance of the parties on 18th September, 1995. However, this case was not taken on 18th September, 1994, finally the matter was taken up on 29.11.1995 in presence of the noticees’. Case No.57 of 1993 has not been complied with and after recording displeasure for noncompliance of the order dated 23.06.1994 directed for appearance of the parties on 18th September, 1995. However, this case was not taken on 18th September, 1994, finally the matter was taken up on 29.11.1995 in presence of the noticees’. Considering the affidavit filed by the contemnors making personal appearance in Court, this Court in a Division Bench disposed of the Original Criminal Misc. Case No.144 of 1994 recording the statement made in the affidavits of the noticees’, the contempt proceeding was ultimately dropped by order dated 29.11.1995. It is stated here that the contempt proceeding was concluded in presence of learned counsels for both the sides. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner along with four other persons from the previous writ petition filed Original Criminal Misc. Case No.628 of 1996 alleging violation of this Court’s order making there in the following claims:- “It is therefore humbly prayed let this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to call upon the contemner-opposite party to show cause as to- a) Why the petitioners dues have not yet been paid notwithstanding several directions of this Court and the consequential orders of different educational authorities; b) why the said opposite party shall not be suitably punished for deliberate and willful violation of the Court’s order; c) why the interest at the rate of 15% from 29.11.95 on the amount in question shall not be directed for payment as the said amount is in the bank deposit; and d) why such other appropriate orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper shall not be passed in the ends of justice If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient case the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the contemner-opposite party herein to make payment of the petitioners dues within a stipulated period and on his failure to make such payment be pleased to punish him with heavy and exemplary costs;” 6. Above contempt petition was filed specifically alleging that notwithstanding several directions of this Court and the consequential order of different authorities their dues have not been released. In the above matter notice was issued to the opposite parties, matter was taken up on 27.02.2001 and considering the facts and submissions by the parties, this Court disposed the said contempt petition with the following directions:- “7. In the above matter notice was issued to the opposite parties, matter was taken up on 27.02.2001 and considering the facts and submissions by the parties, this Court disposed the said contempt petition with the following directions:- “7. 27.2.2001 Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted that now Bijoy Kumar Das is functioning as Principal-cum-Secretary of the Governing Body in Nilamani Mahavidyalaya, Rupsa in the district of Balasore. The complaint is that in spite of this Court’s order, the contemnor-Avinna Chandra Brahma did not obey the order and subsequently, his successor-Janaki Ram Mahanta also did not obey. If that is the case, then the case of such serious nature has to be noticed. However, now we order that the contemnor opposite party shall comply with the earlier order of this Court dated 15.5.1992 passed on O.J.C. No.2304 of 1992, if not yet complied with, within a period of four weeks from this date. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the contempt application is disposed of. Office to communicate the order forthwith …………………… S/d (Chief Justice) ……………….. Sd/-R.K. Patra, J.” 7. In some and substance, the Original Criminal Misc. Case No.628 of 1996 was disposed of directing the contemnor opposite party to comply with the earlier order of this Court dated 14.05.1992 passed in OJC No.230 of 1992 within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. After receipt of the said order as it could not complied the order in the given time, the contemnor by filing the Misc. Case No.24 of 2001 sought for extension of time for compliance of order dated 14.05.1992 in OJC No.2304 of 1992 and the order dated 27.02.2001 passed in Original Criminal Misc. Case No.628 of 1996. Considering the request of the contemnor, this Court disposed the Misc. Case No.24 of 2001 by extending the period by another two months. In the meanwhile, Misc. Case No.242 of 2001 was moved at the instance of the present petitioner along with other persons involved in the first writ petition praying therein for initiating the contempt proceeding against the opposite party for its deliberate and will full violation of the order dated 27.02.2001 passed Original Criminal Misc. Case No.282 of 1996 and punishing the opposite parties for their violation of the order of this Court. Case No.282 of 1996 and punishing the opposite parties for their violation of the order of this Court. This writ petition is taken up on 10.04.2008 on which date there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, however, the Misc. Case was taken up for final disposal and this Court while disposing the Misc. Case passed the following order :- “Misc. Case No.242 of 2001 11. 10.04.2008 None appears for the petitioner. Perused Misc. Case No.242 of 2001, in which petitioner has prayed to book the opposite parties under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act for violation of the Court’s order. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the opp. Parties states that order of the Court has already been disposed of as per the order of this Court passed on 27.02.2001 and consequently, there is nothing to move this application. Accordingly, the Misc. Case is disposed of. …………………….. S/d (P.K. Tripathy, J.) …………………… S/d (L.K. Mishra, J.)” 8. Be it stated here that while hearing the Misc. Case No.242 of 2001 an application at the instance of the petitioner, the opposite parties appearing therein made specific statement that the order of this Court has already been complied with. This Court, however, rejected the Misc. Case by recording above statement of the opposite party and holding the same as not maintainable in view of the fact that the Original Criminal Misc. Case No.628 of 1996 has already been finally disposed of by order dated 27.02.2001. 9. Be that as it may, bare perusal of the prayer in the present writ petition as well as in the previous writ petition OJC No.2304 of 1992, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner with regard to non-payment of particular dues have been taken into consideration in the previous writ petition by order dated 14.05.1992 and this Court while disposing OJC No.2304 of 1992 disposed of the writ petition recording agreement of the counsels for the parties being abided by a decision of this Court in Madhaba Charan Mishra v. State of Orissa in OJC No.3705 of 1987 disposed of on 09.08.1991 and the writ petition vide OJC No.2304 of 1992 was disposed in terms of the judgment passed in OJC No.3705 of 1987 on 09.08.1991. Under the circumstances and in view of the repeated orders of this Court and particularly keeping in view the affidavit and the statement made at the instance of opposite party no.3 the order of this Court passed in OJC No.2304 of 1992 has already been complied. There is no scope left for this Court to again probe into the matter involved in the present case as the same was already a matter in dispute in the previous writ and particularly when the same has already been worked out. It appears from the contention of the petitioner that still he has grievance with regard to the submission of the opposite party in the matter of release of arrear dues. There is affidavit verses affidavit. Such disputes cannot be decided by a Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. The writ petition is thus dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs.