The court recognizes the importance of maintaining judicial dignity and outlines procedures to ensure accountability in cases of contempt, recalling its order to allow for proper jurisdictional handling while preserving the petitioner's right to remedy.

JUDGMENT :

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

The subject Writ Petition was disposed off ex parte, vide order dated 09.09.2025, which reads as under:

“Learned counsel for the Petitioner, party in person, having argued the matter for some time, now seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the Petition with liberty to pursue the remedies elsewhere in accordance with law.

Leave having been accorded, Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought for.”

2. There are three Applications for consideration at the hands of this Court. Two of them, viz., I.A. No.16218 of 2025 & I.A. No. 16219 of 2025 are filed by a non-party to the Writ Petition, who happens to be a Member of the Bar. The former one seeks recall of the above order, whereby the Writ Petition was disposed off. The latter seeks stay of the said order, till consideration of former Application. The third Application in I.A. No.18345 of 2025 is filed by the Writ Petitioner himself with the following prayers:

“And Your Lordships may kindly add Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija as a party to this Petition for the limited purpose of these proceedings and report this matter before the Full Court in accordance with Rule 11 of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 for appropriate action;

And Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to direct that the parties and their advocates may appear in these proceedings, to the exclusion of all others not duly authorized or connected with the matter, so as to maintain orderly and fair conduct in the courtroom;”

3. This Court, vide order dated 16.09.2025, had kept that portion of the final order dated 09.09.2025 under suspended animation whereby liberty was granted to the Petitioner to explore remedies elsewhere. Matter was heard for some time on 19.09.2025 and the following order came to be passed:

“This Petition was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 09.09.2025 ex-parte OPs at the admission stage. The short order is reproduced for ease of reference.

“Learned counsel for the Petitioner, party in person, having argued the matter for some time, now seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the Petition with liberty to pursue the remedies elsewhere in accordance with law.

Leave having been accorded, Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought for.”

2. Now, I.A. No.16218 of 2025 has been moved essentially seeking recall of the said order and I.A. No.16219 of 2025 has been moved for staying the operation of said order. The applicant, in both the applications, was not a party to the Writ Petition. This Court is not very sure whether he has locus standi to maintain the subject applications. Be that as it may, but the applications reveal that this Court ought not to have passed order of the kind, especially granting liberty to the Petitioner to agitate his grievance elsewhere, when the matter did not fall within its roster made by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, who is the Master of the Roster, vide Apex Court decision in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, (1998) 1 SCC 1.

3. Party in-person, who also claims to be an advocate, rightly submits that in terms of Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the matter should go to the hands of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. He says, in the course of hearing today, that this was brought to my notice on the first day itself, when the Petition was heard. In the above circumstances, the subject order is liable to be recalled and matter needs to be placed at the hands of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

4. The above being said, learned Senior Advocates-Mr. Ashok Parija, Mr. D.P. Nanda & Mr. Gautam Mukherjee very vehemen