Orissa High Court
CONTC/1575/2021 on 31 March, 2021
CONTC NO.1575 OF 2021
CONTC No.1575 of 2021 & I.A. No.206 of 2021
04. 31.03.2021 Heard Mr.S.Senapati, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for
the contemnors.
This is a sorry state of affair that in spite of a
clear direction in disposal of W.P.(C) No.19805 of 2017 on
02.04.2019 thereby directing the Bhubaneswar Municipal
Corporation to pass order settling the tenement in favour
of the petitioner by passing appropriate order within a
period of two months from the date of communication of
the order, the Bhubaneswar Municipal Commissioner while
sitting over the same, on the other hand, in the meanwhile
going on passing orders after orders behaving as an
Appellate Authority over the order of High Court. In spite
of a direction for settling the tenement in favour of
petitioner since 2.4.2019, the contemnors even have gone
to ask the petitioner to vacate the tenement with
threatening of stoppage of pension. This order of threaten
appears to have been passed on 17.06.2020
communicated to the petitioner on 8.7.2020, as clearly
borne from Annexure-4 to the contempt petition, which is
again followed by another penal order again contrary to
direction of this Court in the disposed of writ petition, vide
their orders dated 27.1.2021 and 29.1.2021 again asking
the petitioner to vacate the tenement within fifteen days as
appearing one such order, vide Annexure-5 to the
uks contempt petition.
Being aggrieved by the action through the
2
order dated 17.6.2020, petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.29053
of 2020. This Court since finds the impugned order
remaining contrary to the direction of this Court gave
interim protection. Petitioner simultaneously also moved
the present contempt petition, which was entertained by
this Court by its order dated 9.3.2021 and in issuing
direction for personal appearance of both the
Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner in the said order
gave liberty to both of them to rectify their mistake even
before they appear in this Court on the next date.
Today on appearance in the contempt, a
response dated 25.3.2021 has been filed claiming to be in
compliance of the order of this Court dated 2.4.2019, this
time through several paragraphs, the contemnors disclosed
withdrawal of orders dated 27.1.2021 and 29.1.2021 by
issuing an order dated 15.3.2021. In the above premises
and the impression of compliance of this Court's order, the
Contemnor No.1 avoiding appearance in person instead
filed an application for dispensation of his personal
appearance, vide I.A. No.206 of 2021 also taken up along
with the main case. Through additional affidavit dated
30.3.2021, it again appears the contemnors while claiming
to have withdrawn the orders dated 27.1.2021 and
29.1.2021 issued another penal order on 26.3.2021
appearing at Annexure-6 to the Additional Affidavit dated
30.3.2021. Again in an attempt to undermine the prestige
of this Court for non-compliance of order dated 2.4.2019,
the contemnor no.1 passed another penal order in the
remaining of final order dated 2.4.2019 and concluding
3
part of the order dated 26.3.2021 reads as follows :-
"Sri Pattnaik, the petitioner was never allotted
this quarter as slum dweller. This tenement was
allotted to him like other Municipal office
employees to meet the scarcity of the quarters.
The tenements were constructed over Govt.
funding for providing to identified slum dwellers.
The petitioner is not coming within slum dwellers
rather retired employee and pensioner. As
stated the BMC has also no absolute authority
u/s.489 of the OMC Act, 2003 to settle the
tenement. The petitioner has not been identified
and registered as a slum dweller, u/s.-482, 483
and 484 of OMC Act, 2003. He has also not
made any such application with any such
materials establishing, that he is a slum dweller/
economically weaker section /Industrial Labours
need for a house and financially not sound to
have a house for living of his family and more so
in Bhubaneswar, even after his retirement, so
as to enable the corporation to consider the
same. That apart, if allotted quarter is settled,
then in future other employees allotted with
quarter may also claim in similar manner. Then,
there will be also scarcity of quarters and the
purpose of slum dwellers scheme will be
frustrated. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for
settlement is considered to be wholly unjustified,
without reasonable basis, contrary to guidelines,
misconceived, and it is beyond authority of BMC
to settle, hence does not merit.
NOW THERFORE, the representation of the
petitioner is hereby considered/disposed of and
accordingly the order of Hon'ble High Court is
complied with."
There is yet again an action of the
Commissioner of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation to act
beyond and contrary to direction of this Court dated
2.4.2019 in W.P.(C) No.19805 of 2017.
For repeated orders being passed by the
4
Commissioner remaining contrary to the direction dated
2.4.2019, there is clear attempt of the Commissioner of
Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and as this Court
finds, the action of the Commissioner is unbecoming, as he
goes on playing with High Court's order in issuing one after
another penal order instead of complying with the order
dated 2.4.2019, this Court while rejecting the apology
tendered in their show-cause dated 25.3.2021 and
rejecting the request for dispensation of personal
appearance of the Commissioner also filing false affidavit
on showing cause claiming to have already complied with
the directions and for withdrawing the penal orders, this
Court is of the clear impression that the Commissioner, Sri
Choudhury is deliberately avoiding Court appearance.
Hence, this Court directs the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Bhubaneswar to produce the Commissioner of
Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation in this Court today at
4.00 P.M. to provide him an opportunity to submit on the
question of sentence. It be stated here that Miss.
G.Samantaray, Deputy Commissioner of Bhubaneswar
Municipal Corporation is present in person in Court and she
is also directed to appear before this Court again at 4 P.M.
today.
....................................
Biswanath Rath, J.
31.03.2021
Later Pursuant to direction of this Court today
(4.00P.M.)
through the above order, the IIC, Bargarh P.S. has caused
production of Sri Prem Chandra Choudhury,
Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation in
Court today at 4.00 P.M.
At this stage of the matter, Mr. A.K. Parija,
learned Senior Counsel appeared along with Sri
P.K.Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of
Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and intervened in the
matter. This time, the Commissioner produces a copy of
the order signed by himself indicating to have withdrawn
the last penal office order dated 26.03.2021 but for the
disclosure in the office order dated 26.3.2021, particularly
the last part of order and the manner of discussion as
taken note in the previous order, there is yet another
blunt on the High Court and appearing to be clear attempt
on the part of the Commissioner to show his power and
such action of Sri Choudhury, the Contemnor No.1 is clear
contempt of Court.
The direction of the judgment was given in
April, 2019. Admittedly, there is no challenge to it. Yes,
there may be disagreement with the order/direction and
only course left with the party is to immediately challenge
it in Upper Court, which scope even lost for efflux of time.
Issuing penal orders in the meantime has landed in
another writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.29053/2020 in
the meantime where this Court issuing notice has again
passed an interim order. Protecting the Petitioner from
any coercive action did not find end of the matter, as the
Commissioner goes on passing one after another penal
order. There is no meaning in begging apology. Then the
matter also involved in the present contempt. The
contemnors are busy in passing orders one after another
in clear contradiction of the directions of this Court in the
disposal and this action is being undertaken by the
Commissioner, an IAS officer amounting to deliberate and
willful violation of this Court's direction in W.P.(C)
No.19805 of 2017, decided on 02.04.2019. There is
constant attempt to lower the dignity of this Court and
tremendous exhibition of ego and power to thwart the
direction of this Court thereby disrespecting the direction
of this Court again and again. Today even after the
Commissioner was brought to the Court filing another
order here even though the Commissioner bringing to the
notice of this Court that there is recalling of the order
dated 26.03.2021 but there is no showing of interest to
work out the direction dated 21.01.2019 in the disposal of
W.P.(C) No.19805 of 2017 even after two years passed in
the meantime.
However, keeping in view the apology
tendered by Sri Choudury with undertaking to come out
with order in compliance of direction of this Court dated
2.4.2019 in W.P.(C) No.19805 of 2017 within short period,
this Court while continuing with personal appearance of
the Commissioner on 06.04.2021 also directs the
Commissioner to bear his travelling expenses to have
personal appearance on this date as well as on the next
date of posting of the case to 06.04.2021.
Place this matter on 06.04.2021 along with
the case records in W.P.(C) No.19805 of 2017 and W.P.(C)
No.29053 of 2020 for further hearing on sentence aspect
and/or otherwise. The Commissioner is also called upon if
he had not recalled the order dated 26.3.2021 what made
him to submit that there is withdrawal of penal order and
thereby claimed that there is compliance of this Court's
order involved by way of affidavit on the next date of
posting.
....................................
Biswanath Rath, J.
