p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No. 7010 of 2024 M/s. Nayak Associates, represented by its Proprietor, Dillip Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner In Person -versus- Sri Hemakanta Say, IAS, The Collector & D.M.-cum-CEO, S.D.C., Mayurbhanj …. Opposite Party Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 30.01.2026 01. 1. The petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.26959 of 2020, which came to be disposed of on 14th July, 2021, by a division Bench of this Court directing the Collector & D.M.- cum-CEO, S.D.C., Mayurbhanj to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other persons, who may be interested in the matter and to take a decision on the representation made in this regard by recording a reasoned and speaking order within a period of one month. p. 2 2. The said order was duly communicated to the authority and the said representation was disposed of on 23rd August, 2021. The tenet of the said order reveals that the authorities, before proceeding to take a decision on the basis of the representation so submitted, issued a notice to the petitioner and after appearance, the submissions and/or statements were also recorded on 12th August, 2021. 3. It is not in dispute that the said order dated 23rd August, 2021 was duly communicated to the petitioner. However, the petitioner perceived certain observations made in the said impugned order to have an element and/or flavor of a fraud, which has been committed in relying on certain letters and/or documents, which, according to the petitioner, is/are fabricated and/or manufactured. The petitioner thereafter had undergone a surgery and was unable to perform his daily activities and immediately after recovering from such illness, an application was made under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 relating to a letter dated 17th December, 2018 which the petitioner perceived to be a manufactured one and after getting the reply, the instant contempt application is taken out alleging that p. 3 the authorities have committed a grave error in not complying the directions in its proper perspective. 4. We had an occasion to go through the decision dated 23rd August, 2021, wherefrom we find a reflection of a letter being No. 519 dated 17th December, 2018 where an undertaking was given that after the approval of the script by the purchaser, the petitioner will take minimum thirty (30) days to supply the finished documentary. 5. Our attention is drawn to the documents annexed to the instant contempt application, more particularly, two letters bearing the same date and the reference number, which, according to the petitioner, the letter being Annexure-3 to the contempt application is a genuine one and not the letter annexed as Annexure-5 therein. 6. The contempt jurisdiction cannot be expanded to decide the complex questions, more particularly, when the genuineness of a document is sought to be raised and to make a roving inquiry afresh in this regard. The contempt Court shall confine its scrutiny on the allegations made in the contempt petition as to whether the alleged contemnors have complied the order so passed and if there has been some negligence/lapses which are willful and deliberate, attributable p. 4 to their conduct. We are not unmindful of the settled proposition of law that the contempt jurisdiction is not restricted to punish the violator of the law but also to see that the order passed by the Court is duly implemented. The majesty and the sanctity of the Courts have to be preserved and the Court shall not permit any person to violate the said order undermining the authority of the Court with a willful and deliberate act. Once the Court finds that the direction passed by the Court has been implemented, whether such decision is infirm or contains any erroneous finding, invites a fresh cause of action and the contempt jurisdiction should not be stretched so as to convert it into the Court of original jurisdiction. 7. In this matter, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court directed the representation to be disposed of within a time frame ensuring the compliance of the principles of natural justice and we find from the tenet of the order that the petitioner was served with a notice and in fact, his statement was also recorded. Whether the authorities have committed any error, technical or procedural, it is open to the petitioner to ventilate such grievance before the appropriate forum. Page 5 of 5 8. Since the order has already been complied with, though belatedly, we do not find any contemptuous act to have been committed by the alleged contemnor and, therefore, the contempt proceeding is dropped. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (Savitri Ratho) Judge S. Behera Designation: Senior Stenographer