Orissa High Court
Sri Binayak Swain And Ors. vs Bijaya Kumar Pattanik And Ors. on 20 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: 99(2005)CLT587
Author: I.M. Quddusi
Bench: I.M. Quddusi, N. Prusty
ORDER I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. Heard Mr. Somadarsan Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 128 of 2002 by which the Learned Tribunal refused to entertain the contempt petition on the ground that no time limit for compliance of the Order dated 15.1.2002 passed in O.A. No. 1312 of 1996 was fixed by the Tribunal.
3. Even though the matter was listed for admission, on consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken for final disposal.
4. The question before us is that if by an order no time limit for compliance of the same is fixed, whether it is open for the authority concerned to avoid compliance of the same on the ground that no time limit was fixed or as to whether it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to comply with the order within a reasonable time.
5. There are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of different High Courts that where no time limit is fixed, the reasonable time be ninty days. The Writ Applications are also filed in the High Court following this principle and when Writ Petitions are filed after expiry of ninty days from the date of cause of action, then it is always expected that the petitioner should explain the delay and laches in filing the Writ Application. Similarly, if a direction has been issued for compliance of certain orders and no time limit has been fixed for its compliance, it should always be deemed that a reasonable time for compliance of such direction is ninty days and in case the direction is not complied with within that period, the Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, may ask the authority concerned as to why the compliance of the direction has not been made.
6. It is also a matter of consideration that the period of limitation for filing of contempt petition is one year. If no time limit has been fixed for making compliance of a direction and the aggrieved party is deprived of filing a contempt petition within one year or his contempt petition is not entertained on the ground that no time limit was fixed for making compliance of the direction, whether it will be open for the aggrieved party to file a contempt petition after the expiry of one year and as to whether if a contempt petition is filed beyond one year, a time barred petition will be eligible to be entertained. The only answer to this is that no such petition can be entertained where application for condonation of delay is not entertainable.
7. Therefore, rejecting the contempt petition on the ground that no time limit was fixed in the Order dated 15.1.2002 passed by the Tribunal, is not a reasonable one and hence not sustainable in the eye of law.
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned Order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the Learned Tribunal in C.P.(C) No. 128/2002 is quashed/set aside.
9. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for hearing the same afresh. The Tribunal should see that whether the opposite parties before it have made compliance of the Order dated 15.1.2002 passed in O.A. No. 1312/1996 along with other batch of cases in its true spirit or not and pass appropriate order in the matter in accordance with law keeping in view of the fact that its order has not been complied with within a reasonable time.
10. We make it clear that we have neither considered the case of the instant petitioner or the petitioners of other cases which are in batch nor expressed any opinion in respect of the merits of the case which is to be considered by the Tribunal independently on its own merit in accordance with law without being influenced by this order.
11. The Writ Application is accordingly disposed of with the above observation direction.
N. Prusty, J.
12. I agree.