Orissa High Court
CONTC/3713/2026 of BAURI BANDHU MUDULI Vs ARAVIND AGRAWAL, SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPTT. on 7 August 2026
of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No.3713 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010379172026 Bauri Bandhu Muduli ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Sandhyarani Pani -versus- Aravind Agrawal, Secretary, Higher Education Department and another ..... Opposite Parties/ Contemnors Ms. B.L. Tripathy,
Page 1 of 2.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC No.3713 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010379172026
Bauri Bandhu Muduli
.....
Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Sandhyarani Pani
-versus-
Aravind Agrawal, Secretary,
Higher Education Department
and another
.....
Opposite Parties/
Contemnors
Ms. B.L. Tripathy, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
07.08.2026 Order No.
01.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the contempt application.
3. By filing the present contempt application the Petitioner challenges the inaction of the Opposite Parties in not implementing order dated 22.01.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No.1882 of 2026.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that although the writ petition filed by the Petitioner vide order dated 22.01.2026 directing the Opposite Parties to reconsider the case of the Petitioner strictly in terms of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment of General Secretary, Utkal University Demonstrators’ Association decided in O.J.C. Nos.1088 of 2000 and 13156 of 1998 within a period of eight weeks, such
Page 2 of 2. direction of this Court has not been complied with. Being aggrieved by such deliberate and willful violation of this Court’s order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present contempt application. It was not brought to the notice of the Court that the aforesaid order has been challenged by filing a writ appeal. Therefore, this Court presumed that the order passed by this Court has attained finality.
5. Learned counsel for the Contemnors, on the other hand, sought for some more time to ensure that the order passed by this Court is fully implemented in the event the same has attained finality in the meantime.
6. Considering the request made by the Opposite Parties- Contemnors, he is granted further four weeks’ time to ensure that the order passed by this Court is fully implemented. In the event the order still remains unimplemented, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to revive the contempt application by filing a memorandum. In such eventuality, the Opposite Parties-Contemnors shall be asked to appear before this Court and to explain as to why they shall not be proceeded against under the Contempt of Court’s Act for their willful and deliberate violation of this Court’s order.
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CONTC application stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Aug-2026 10:31:54 Signature Not Verified