Chinmaya Pasayat & Anr vs Uday A Kaole
2026 Latest Caselaw 2835 Ori

Orissa High Court

Chinmaya Pasayat & Anr vs Uday A Kaole on 24 March, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                   CONTC No.1329 of 2026

                                   Chinmaya Pasayat & Anr.          ....            Petitioner(s)

                                                               Mr. Santosh Kumar Nanda, Adv.
                                                               -versus-
                                   Uday A Kaole, Chairman-
                                   cum-Managing Director,
                                   Mahanadi Coalfields
                                   Limited, Samabalpur              ....        Contemnor(s)/
                                                                            Opposite Party(s)

                                                                        Mr. S.D. Das, Sr. Adv.
                                                                    Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Adv.

                                          CORAM:
                                          HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                                                           ORDER

Order No. 24.03.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Advocate, has filed his

memo of appearance on behalf of the contemnor

(s)/opposite Party (s), which is taken on record.

3. Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate submits that MCL has,

in the meantime, preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP)

before the Supreme Court being Diary No.15883 of 2026,

challenging the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by this Court

Designation: Senior Stenographer

passed in W.P.(C) No.459 of 2016. Date: 24-Mar-2026 17:04:45

4. In view of the pendency of the aforesaid SLP before the

Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that

it would not be appropriate to proceed further in the

present contempt proceedings at this stage.

5. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to pass any order

at this stage.

6. The CONTC stands disposed of.

7. However, it is observed that in the event the orders

passed by this Court are affirmed by the Supreme Court,

the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek restoration of the

present CONTC by filing an appropriate application in

accordance with law.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

Sipun