Jamuna Sethi v. Parshuram Panda, Bdo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CONTC No.2232 of 2021 (Through Hybrid mode) Jamuna Sethi ....

Applicant Mr. G. N. Sethi, Advocate Mr. T. K. Mahanta, Advocate -versusParshuram Panda, BDO ....

Alleged Contemner Mr. A. K. Nanda, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

ORDER

01.12.2022 Order No.

02.

1.

Mr. Sethi, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant and submits, there has been deliberate and wilful violation of directions in order dated 18th February, 2021, disposing of his client's writ petition. He draws attention to compliance affidavit dated 15th November, 2021 of alleged contemner to submit, in paragraph 7 it has been said that though his client is eligible to get pucca house but his client's name was not included in the list and in future, priority will be given for inclusion. He submits, this amounts to contempt. 2.

Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of alleged contemner and submits, there

// 2 // has been compliance. He tenders unqualified apology on behalf of his client for delayed compliance.

3.

In said order dated 18th February, 2021 there was direction to consider petitioner's claim. It appears from the compliance affidavit that there has been consideration and reason for not extending the benefit has been given. In event applicant is aggrieved by the reason, regarding why his name was not included at first instance, remedy lies elsewhere than in contempt jurisdiction. 4.

The apology and compliance are accepted. The applicant is left to find remedy, if aggrieved. The contempt proceeding is dropped and the application, disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Prasant