Judicial orders must be respected and implemented promptly by authorities, without dependency on petitioner actions, to uphold court dignity.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The dormant and lethargic attitude of the authorities in taking a prompt and immediate decision in compliance of the direction passed by this Court in an earlier round of litigation, is eminently present and manifested in the instant case.

2. Though the petitioner has not complained off the violation of the order dated 26^th October, 2021 passed in WP(C) No.17047 of 2021 by filing a contempt petition, yet the Court cannot shut its eyes in the event the Court finds that there has been a flagrant violation of the said order undermining the sanctity and majesty of the Court and its order. We would have proceeded to initiate a suo motu contempt proceeding after noticing the aforesaid facts, but we find that the petitioner has approached by filing a separate writ petition seeking implementation of the said order.

3. We do not find any embargo created in law in maintaining the subsequent writ petition, even if the contempt petition is not filed. The same having disposed of, as the petitioner is seeking the implementation of the said order, we proceed to decide the matter. The writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.17047 of 2021 was filed seeking a direction upon the authorities to allow the petitioner to operate the quarry lease for a period of five years reckoning from 4^th December, 2020 and quashing the order dated 19^th April, 2021 passed by the Tahasildar, Garadpur, Kendrapara preventing the petitioner to stop the lifting of the sand from the said source on and after 25^th April, 2021. The Court while disposing of the said matter, observed as follows:-

“8. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court quashes the letter dated 19^th April, 2021 issued b the Tahasildar, Garadpur and holds that the petitioner is permitted to count the five year period of the lease from the date of registration of the lease deed i.e. 4^th December, 2020 consistent with Rule 61(2) of the OMMC Rules, 2004. The necessary corrections be carried out in the lease agreement within a period of four weeks to reflect the above position.

9. It is clarified that the period during which the lease has been stopped i.e. 27^th April, 2021 onwards upto the date on which it allowed to resume on the strength of this order, will also be accounted for while calculating the five-year period.”

4. It is apparent from the bare reading of the directions passed by the Court in the said writ petition that the period of the lease should be counted from the date of the registration of the lease deed and not from the date of the execution thereof under Rule-61 (2) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (for short, “the OMMC Rules”). A specific direction was passed to make necessary correction in the lease agreement within the stipulated time, which in fact has not been done as of now. The Division Bench clarified that for the purpose of computation of the period of lease, the time between the order issued by the concerned Tahasildar stopping the lifting of the sand from the source till the date the same is allowed, shall be excluded and the petitioner shall be given the benefit of the said period. According to the petitioner, till date it has not been issued the order to resume the lifting of sand and, therefore, the period of the lease has not expired by efflux of time.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties submits that the period of lease has expired by efflux of time having reckoned from 4^th December, 2020 and, therefore, the writ petition has received a natural death being infructuous. He further submits that despite the specific direction pas