PRAVASH KUMAR SAHOO Vs. S M PATTNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY Order dated 17.11.2004, on agreement of the Learned Counsel for the parties, this contempt application was directed to be finally heard on 24.11.2004, the case was listed on 24.11.2004, but in view of the difficulty expressed by the Learned Advocate General, the case was adjourned to 8.12,2004 for final hearing of the matter.

(2.) WHEN the matter was taken up for hearing, Sri B.K. Mohanty, Learned Advocate Genera! raised a preliminary question with regard to the maintainability of the contempt application and as such, the matter was heard on the question of maintainability.

(3.) MR . M.S. Panda, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner No. 1, however, submits that the present contempt petition is pending since last four years and in the meantime, some interim orders had been passed and some such orders had been challenged before the Supreme Court and during such time, nor in the earlier point of time the question of maintainability had been raised and as such, the same cannot be raised at this belated stage when the matter is fixed for hearing. It is further submitted that Bal Thackrey's case referred to and relied on by the Learned Advocate General in support of his case relates to a contempt contemplated under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act which is a Criminal contempt and as such, this being a contempt of Civil nature contemplated in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the contentions raised and the decision relied on has no application. Sri S.S. Das, Learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner No. 2 while adopting the argument advanced by Sri Panda, has referred to certain decisions of this Court and the definition of 'Contempt' contemplated under Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is his submission that the contempt contemplated under Section 15 is in respect of Criminal Contempt and does not cover the case of the nature of a Civil Contempt envisaged under Section 14 of the Act as that of the present contempt application and as such, the contentions raised by the Learned Advocate General are misconceived in law. Initiation of a Civil Contempt for violation of the order of the Court needs no consent of the Advocate General as in cases of Criminal Contempt under Section 15 of the Act.