Orissa High Court
Chintamani Padhan vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 10 April, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.309 of 2024
Chintamani Padhan .... Petitioner
Mr. Pravash Chandra Mahapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No. ORDER
3. 10.04.2025
I.A. No.409 of 2024 and RVWPET 309 of 2024
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the
petitioner for condonation of delay of 738 days in filing the Review
Petition, which was filed to review the order dated 18.10.2022 of
this Court in CONTC(CP) No.188 of 2011.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. In the case of Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran,
(2014) 3 SCC 373, the Hon'ble Supreme Court (three-Judge Bench)
in paragraph-19 held as follows:-
"19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this
Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power
available both under the Constitution as well as the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if
misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual
charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of
the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the
same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also
necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a
contempt plea involves a process of self-determination of the
sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which
disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore,
travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged
to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not
been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order
violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are
explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident
ought to be taken into account for the purpose of
consideration as to whether there has been any
disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues
cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be
considered. The Courts must also ensure that while
considering a contempt plea the power available to the
Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal
is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental
to what has been already expressed should be issued by the
Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the
contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in
other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above.
The above principles would appear to be the cumulative
outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely,
Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5
SCC 352, V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju, (2004)
13 SCC 610, Bihar Finance Service House Construction
Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami, (2008) 5 SCC 339
and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV, (2006) 1 SCC
613."
5. Keeping in view the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to maintainability of the
Review Petition against an order passed in the Contempt Petition
and also considering the insufficient reason stated in the application
for condonation of delay and taking note of submission advanced by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is not
inclined to condone the delay of 738 days in filing the Review
Petition.
6. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application for condonation
of delay stands dismissed. Consequently, the Review Petition is
dismissed.
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Aswini
Designation: Personal Assistant
