SARAT KUMAR PAIKARAY Vs. SATYAKAMA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner approached this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No.23532 of 2012 challenging the action of opposite parties for not including the First Post of English into the grant-in-aid fold as per Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 2008 and praying for a direction to the opposite parties to approve the post of English and to release Grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though in pursuance to the order dated 10.4.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.23532 of 2012, the petitioner submitted his representation before the opposite party on 24.4.2013 but no order was passed thereunder. The petitioner filed an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to know about the position of his representation and reply was furnished by the Br. PIO-cum-Dy. Director (NGC-II) that no action has been taken in the matter. Since the representation was not considered within the stipulated period of time as fixed by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2013, this contempt application has been filed.

(3.) Notice was issued to the contemnor-opposite party on 4.8.2014 asking him to explain as to why he shall not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act for flouting the order of this Court. In pursuance to such notice, show-cause was filed by the Director of Higher Education, Odisha indicating therein that after receiving the representation of the petitioner on 24.04.2013, the concerned record was duly processed and in obedience to the order dated 10.4.2013 of this Court, necessary communication was made on 2.8.2014 to the office of the Principal, Mohan Mahila Junior Mahavidhyalaya, Chandpur who was opposite party No. 3 in W.P.(C) No.23532 of 2012 intimating the date of hearing as 20.08.2014 at 11.30 a.m. It was directed to the Principal to produce the relevant records/documents and it was also requested to the Principal to intimate the petitioner to attend the hearing on the said date. It is further stated in the show-cause affidavit that in response to the letter dated 2.08.2014, the petitioner as well as the Principal of the said College appeared before the deponent on 20.08.2014 and participated in the process of hearing and the Principal also produced relevant documents before the deponent and after hearing the parties and perusing the materials on record diligently, the deponent passed a reasoned order on 28.08.2014 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The deponent further submitted in the show-cause affidavit that the delay caused in disposal of the representation was unintentional and bona fide and he deeply regretted for the time taken to comply the orders of this Court and also tendered unqualified apology.