Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: contempt stayed in State Of Orissa vs B.N. Som And Anr. on 22 December, 2006Matching Fragments
4. While entertaining the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 4843 of 2004 on 13.9.2004, this Court directed issue of notice on admission indicating therein that this writ petition shall be disposed of at the stage of admission. The above mentioned application for interim relief i.e., Misc. Case No. 7154 of 2003 was also taken up and it was ordered by the Division Bench of this Court that further proceeding in C.P. No. 102 of 2003 pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack shall remain stayed for a period of twelve weeks and the Misc. case was allowed. Thereafter, the writ petition was listed on 11.1.2005. Again another Misc. Case bearing No. 104 of 2005 was filed indicating therein that twelve weeks period expired on 13.12.2004 and on 22.12.2004, the learned Tribunal took up the contempt petition and directed that since twelve weeks period expired, the Senior DEN (Co-ord) should be present in person on 14.1.2005 for further proceeding in the contempt case and the impugned order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Tribunal in the O.A. was subject to result of the writ petition. Prayer was made in Misc. Case No. 104 of 2005 filed in the writ petition; W.P.(C) No. 4843 of 2004 that further proceeding in the Contempt petition be stayed till final disposal of the writ petition. The said application was listed on 11.1.2005 before this Court and after hearing Shri A. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri J.K. Das, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1, the interim order was passed to the effect as quoted hereunder;
It would appear that the petitioner is not appearing on account of the stay order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. However, notice be issued to both the parties to appear before this Tribunal on the next date of hearing, as petition filed under Section 17 of the A.T. Act. 1985 is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and the order staying the contempt proceedings before the Tribunal, if at all has been passed, is non est in the eye of law and therefore, the same is inoperative xx xx xx In view of confinement of the powers of the High Court in so far as proceedings before the tribunal under Section 17 of the A.T. Act. 1985 is concerned-application of Article 227 of the Constitution is not attracted and therefore, the further proceeding in this C.P. will continue. Accordingly, call this matter on 11.3.2005.
10. On granting the interim order by this Court, the opposite parties constituting the Bench, passed the following order which amounts to lowering down the authority of this Court and obstructing the Administration of Justice:
xx xx xx the order staying contempt proceeding before the Tribunal, if at all has been passed is non-est in the eye of law and therefore the same is inoperative.
xx xx xx In view of confinement of the powers of the High Court in so far as the proceedings before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the A.T. Act, 1985 is concerned, the application under Article 227 of the Constitution is not attracted and therefore, the further proceeding in C.P. will continue.
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes, or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
12. In view of the above, the afore-quoted sentence used by the opposite parties constituting the Bench of the Tribunal, undoubtedly, lowers the authority of this Court and thus, constitutes a criminal contempt. Further, the opposite parties deliberately and intentionally ordered in spite of the order passed by this Court staying the contempt proceeding that further, proceeding in the contempt petition will continue and notice be issued to both the parties to appear before the Tribunal on the next date of hearing. This itself constitutes a civil contempt looking into the definition given in Section 2(b) as it relates to wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court.