p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK (From the order dated 27.06.2024 Passed in I.A.No7988 of 2024 (arising out of W.P.(C) No.14977 of ) Adarsha Pathagara, Sundargarh .…… Petitioner -Versus- P.K.Jena, Manager (TS) Land, Rourkela Steel Plan, Sundargarh & Ors. ……. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S.P.Mishra , Advocate For Opposite Parties : Dr. N.K.Sahu, Sr.Advocate CORAM : JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 2nd July 2026 B.P. Routray,J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. N.K.Sahu, learned Senior Counsel for Opposite Parties. 2. Present contempt petition is filed for violation of interim order dated 27th June 2024. Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:13:29 Signature Not Verified p. 2 3. This Court in W.P.(C) No.14977 of 2024 vide order dated 27th June 2024 has directed as follows:- “as an interim, it is directed that status-quo as on date over the case land shall be maintained by the parties till 17th September 2024.” Thereafter, the writ petition was not listed nor said interim order was extended further. It is submitted at the bar that neither the writ petition has been listed till date nor the interim order dated 27th June 2024 is extended after 17th September 2024. 4. Subsequently, the notice under Annexure-2 in Form ‘C’ of the Public Premises (Eviction of Authorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was issued by the authority to the Petitioner giving 14 days period to the Petitioner for removal/ disposition by public auction. After issuance of this notice present contempt petition has been filed alleging that issuance of such notice is in violation of interim order dated 27th June 2024 of this Court. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner that even if the matter was not listed after 17th September 2024, but no specific order vacating the interim order was passed. Further the Opposite Parties have not prayed for vacation of said Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:13:29 Signature Not Verified p. 3 interim order before this Court specifically by filing any interim application for vacation of the same. Therefore, there is deemed continuance of said interim order till date and as such, the issuance of subsequent notice under Annexure-2 is amounting to violation of said interim order dated 27th June 2024. 6. Mr. Sahu, learned Senior Counsel on the other hand submits on behalf of the Opposite Parties that the Petitioner did not take any step either to list the matter after 27th June 2024 nor any order was passed thereafter by this Court extending said interim order beyond 17th September 2024. Therefore, the action of the Opposite Parties issuing the notice as per law under Annexure-2 cannot be construed as violation of the interim order of this Court. 7. Upon hearing both parties, it is found admitted that the writ petition has not been listed till date after 27th June 2024 and the interim order was specifically in-operation till 17th September 2024. It is well-settled that when an interim order is specifying to be in- operation for a particular, date the term of the interim order is operative till that particular date and not beyond that. [See High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2024) 6 Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Jul-2026 17:13:29 Signature Not Verified p. 4 SCC 303, Ashok Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2007) 3 SCC 470, Arjan Singh vs. Punit Ahluwalia & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 348)]. 8. When the interim order was not extended beyond 17th September 2024 and in the order dated 27th June 2024 it has been specifically mentioned that the parties shall maintain status-quo till 17th September 2024, obviously the interim order expired on 17th September 2024 and cannot be said in-operation thereafter, particularly when the writ petition is not listed after 27th June 2024. As such, this Court is of the opinion that by issuance of notice under Annexure-2 the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act is not attracted for initiating action against the Opposite Parties for Contempt of Court. 9. The CONTC is accordingly disposed of by dropping the contempt proceeding. (B.P. Routray) Judge S.Das,Sr.Steno