Basanta Kumar Sarangi vs Jayanta Kumar Parida

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Panigrahi, learned advocate appears on behalf of alleged contemner and submits, order dated 22nd January, 2015 was obtained by suppression, on misleading the Court. He relies on views of a learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in Asim Mukhopadhyay v. Sourindra Nath Roy reported in (2002) 4 CHN 366, paragraph-8. In that case an order made based on notification became unenforceable as the notification stood withdrawn. He submits further, in this case applicant had agreed for demarcating three shop rooms in the area, after which he moved the writ Court to obtain said order. Hence, there could not be compliance because three shop rooms are to be constructed. A writ petition filed by one of the other two contenders is pending.

Mr. Nanda, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant and relies on judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV reported in (2006) 1 SCC 613. He submits, said Court declared the law to be that a party aggrieved by an order should always either approach the Court who passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate Court. Said party cannot flout the order. He submits further, W.P.(C) no.4539 of 2017 is his client’s another writ petition, for allotment of two shop rooms on the trifurcation.

It appears alleged contemner has defence on merits regarding the order carrying the directions in favour of applicant. Office of alleged contemner has not taken any steps to challenge the award in appeal nor to apply for review.

Adjournment is granted to report compliance, failing which there will be adjudication on contempt.

Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner in W.P.(C) no.13675 of 2015 and submits, his client is entitled to get a shop room.

List on 14th March, 2022 along with W.P.(C) nos. 519 of 2015, 13675 of 2015 and 4539 of 2017.

……………………………………