AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 361 wordsRajnesh Oswal, J
This instant appeal has been filed against order dated 03.11.2025 and order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in ROBOW No. 1/2025 in CCP(S) No. 364/2024. It is contended that after the dismissal of the intra court appeal against judgment dated 28.05.2024 rendered by the Writ Court in WP(C) No. 2167/2021, it was not open for the learned Single Judge to embark upon the fresh enquiry with regard to the work executed by the appellant by directing the production of record of allotment order dated 19.05.2022 from the office of Executive Engineer, PWD Division Thanamandi.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned Single Judge has not passed any order/direction which may prejudice the appellant and is still seized of the matter, as such, we do not find any reason to show indulgence. (See Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd and others v Chuni Lal Nanda and others, 2006 INSC 367) As such, the instant appeal is found to be misconceived, the same is dismissed.
LPA No. 312/2025
1 The appellant herein has impugned in this intra court appeal the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CCP(S) No. 364/2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed to frame ROBKAR/Rule against Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Santosh D. Vaidya, appellant herein, asking him to explain by filing reply within two weeks, as to why he should not be proceeded against and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2 Learned Single Judge has not returned any finding with regard to the commission of contempt of Court by the appellant and rather has issued only show cause notice whereby the appellant has been asked only to submit a reply within two weeks.
3 The appellant can demonstrate before the learned Single Judge that he has not violated any order passed by the learned Writ Court. As no final has been passed, we are not inclined to show indulgence. (See Ajay Kumar Bhalla and others v Prakash Kumar Dixit, 2024 INSC 575)
4 In view of the above, the instant appeal is not maintainable, as such, the same is dismissed.