Chairman, Paradeep Municipality And Another vs Bamadev Sahoo And Another

Arindam Sinha, J

RVWPET No.2 of 2015Â &Â Order No. CONTC No.30 of 2015

Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners seeking review. He relies on additional affidavit, affirmed on 4th January, 2022,

paragraph 3 in which on behalf of his client it has been said as follows:-

“That it may kindly be noted that by order dt.10.12.2014 passed in the writ petition No.9167/14, petitioners were directed to allot a shop room in favour of the

opposite party No.01, since the petitioners could not appear on the date fixed for appearance due to inadvertence. It is relevant to point out that on the date of

the order directing for allotment of shop room, no shop rooms were available. Due to bonafide non-appearance of the petitioners, this fact could not be brought to

the notice of the Hon’ble Court for which the allotment order was passed in favour of the petitioners. In such facts and circumstances, the review petition has

been filed on behalf of the petitioners to set aside the impugned order.â€​

Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant in the contempt application and submits, his client filed additional affidavit affirmed on

12th September, 2016 in the contempt application, in which his client in paragraph 7 said as follows:-

“ That the petitioner respectfully and humbly submits before this Court that, in reply to the Para-4 of the Review Petition the petitioner begs to states that, the

petitioner has applied under the R.T.I. Act and in the said R.T.I. Information one Market Supervisor of Paradeep Municipality, Paradeep vide letter dated

19.2.2015 has given information to the petitioner that the shop room situated in between shop Room No.16 and 17 has been used as store room of the

Municipality and another room bearing Shop Room No.1/4 which is situated at “Kalinga Shree Banijya Bitan.†Atharbanki was encroached earlier but it is

now within the custody of Paradeep Municipality.â€​

It appears, the two shop rooms referred to in order dated 10th December, 2014 do not exist or at least cannot be said to have been vacant on date

the order was made. However, applicant in the contempt application has relied on and alleged in paragraph 7 of his additional affidavit that there is

another shop room no.A/4, which was encroached but is now in custody of Paradeep Municipality.

Whether or not another vacant shop room is available with Paradeep Municipality cannot be decided in contempt jurisdiction. What transpires is that

the two shop rooms, accepted by the Court to have been vacant as on 10th December, 2014, were not actually vacant. In the circumstances, the

review application is allowed and order dated 10th December, 2014 recalled. The writ petition is restored for being heard.

No order can be made in the contempt application. It is disposed of.

List the writ petition on 22nd February, 2022 under heading “Old Mattersâ€​.

...........................................