Orissa High Court
CONTC/535/2026 of RAJ KUMAR MISHRA Vs RAGHUNATH BEHERA, GENERAL MANAGER, NEYVELI LIGNITE CORP. INDIA LTD., SAMBALPUR on 23 July 2026
of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No. 535 of 2026 Raj Kumar Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. Debidutta Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- Raghunath Behera, General Manager, Neyveli Lignite Corporation India Ltd., Sambalpur …. Opposite Party Mr. Anindya Kumar Mishra, Advocate CORAM:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC No. 535 of 2026
Raj Kumar Mishra
….
Petitioner
Mr. Debidutta Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Raghunath Behera, General
Manager, Neyveli Lignite
Corporation India Ltd., Sambalpur
….
Opposite Party
Mr. Anindya Kumar Mishra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
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
23.07.2026
02.
1. By an order dated 26th November, 2024, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.28749 of 2024 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court with the following direction:
“xxx
xxx
xxx
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition directing the opposite party no.1- The General Manager, Neyveli Lignite Corporation India Ltd., Talabira Coal Mines Project to take a decision on the application filed by the petitioner vide
Annexure-7 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and communicate the result/decision taken thereon to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.”
2. The said order was duly communicated to the concerned authority and the alleged contemnor appears to have been held responsible for carrying out the said direction. The tenet of the order as quoted hereinabove reveals that the application filed by the petitioner was directed to be disposed of within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the said order and decision that would be taken thereupon should be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks therefrom.
3. It is alleged in the instant contempt application that despite the time limit set forth in the said order passed in the writ petition, the alleged contemnor has not disposed of the said application and, therefore, exposed himself liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
4. The alleged contemnor is represented by Mr. Anindya Kumar Mishra, who submits on instruction that immediately upon production of certified copy of the said order, the application filed by the petitioner had already been disposed of on 20th February, 2025 within the time stipulated in the said order. A copy of the decision/order taken by the concerned authority is also produced before this Court evincing that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the said application has been redressed and no longer survives.
5. However, the dispute remains whether the said decision/order was duly communicated within the time stipulated in the said order to the petitioner. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor, at the very outset, tendered apology on behalf of the alleged contemnor for non-compliance of the latter portion of the said order, as the authority did not communicate the petitioner the said decision within the time fixed in the said order. However, the order has been subsequently communicated through e-mail and, therefore, the delay caused for non-communication of the said order is unintentional and there is no attempt on the part of the alleged contemnor to violate the said order.
6. We have perused the order dated 20th February, 2025 addressed to the petitioner, which evinced that the said application was dealt with by the authority and a final decision has already been taken thereupon within the time fixed by the Court in the said order. Though it has been communicated belatedly, we do not wish to proceed with the instant contempt application as there is no element of willful or deliberate violation of the said order. Apart from the same, once the authorities have taken a decision and disposed of the said application within the time fixed by the Court in the said order, there is no probability that they would deliberately suppress the said order and not communicate the same to the petitioner.
7. We direct the petitioner to serve a copy of the said decision/order passed by the authority to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the Court today, which in fact, has been done.
8. Since the order of this Court has already been substantially complied with, we do not intend to proceed with the instant contempt application any further and the same is hereby dropped.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
S. Behera Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2026 11:04:27 Signature Not Verified