The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.562 of 2025 Sri Sikhar Chandra Jena @ Sikhar Jena and others …. Petitioners Mr. S. Udgata, Advocate -Versus- Additional DCP-cum-EM, Bhubaneswar, Khurda and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA Mr. M. Chand, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. 02. 1.
Decision
ORDER 26.08.2025 Heard Mr. Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Chand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.4 to 19 besides Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. 2. Mr. M. Chand, learned counsel for the private opposite parties files the Vakalatnama today and the same is accepted and taken on record. 3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 19th August, 2025 passed in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No.1254 of 2025 as at Annexure-3 by opposite party No.1 on the grounds stated. 4. Mr. Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the office bearers of the Jharapada Durga Puja Committee, Jharapada and while claiming so, he refers to Annexure-2 series. The further submission is that on receiving intimation from the local PS, the impugned order Page 1 of 6 dated 19th August, 2025, i.e. Annexure-3 has been passed by opposite party No.1. The contention of Mr. Udgata, learned counsel is that such an order and decision by opposite party No.1 is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 166 BNNS, hence, shall have to be interfered with followed by consequential directions issued. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Chand, learned counsel for the private opposite parties submits that the impugned order at Annexure-3 is justified due to existence of breach of peace. Furthermore, the submission is that the revision is not maintainable since the petitioners were required to approach opposite party No.1 consequent upon the impugned order i.e. Annexure-3 and while advancing such an argument cites decision of this Court in Kailash Chandra Kanungo and others Vrs. State of Orissa, 1988 (II) OLR 578. One more decision is cited by Mr. Chand, learned counsel decided in Criminal Revision No.20 of 1983 and disposed of on 3rd March, 1983 in the case of Vardhan Mehta and others Vrs. Narmada Sankar Aswathy and others to contend that the revision is not to be entertained. It is finally submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-3 is perfectly justified and hence, not to be disturbed. 6. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State having received instructions submits that the parties are having dispute for a long time and hence, considering the report received from the local PS, opposite party No.1, in order to prevent any untoward incidents to happen, proceeded to consider action in terms of Page 2 of 6 Section 163(2) BNSS and restrained the petitioners and their supporters to enter into the premises of the case land and therefore, did not seriously err or commit any illegality and thus, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. In course of hearing, Mr. Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the list of citations submits that the petitioners, being the office bearers and in such capacity ever since 2014, are looking after the Durga puja festival for and on behalf of Jharapada Durga Puja Committee, Jharapada, hence, therefore, any such order as per Annexure-3 on the premise of existence of breach of peace is an arbitrary action and hence, unjustified. Referring to a decision in Subhankar Chakraborty and another Vrs. State of West Bengal and others and batch of cases dated 21st September 2017 of the Calcutta High Court in WP 24135 (W) of 2017 etc., it is submitted by Mr. Udgata, learned counsel that the petitioners cannot be prevented by any such order from observing and conducting the puja festival as in the case (supra), restriction on the immersion of idol was lifted and directed to be held maintaining law and order and to rule out the possibility of any such untoward incidents. The contention is that the petitioners having the rights to conduct the festival could not have been restrained by the impugned order i.e. Annexure-3 without the proper enquiry and merely upon receiving intimation from the local PS. 8. Narrating the facts, it is reiterated by Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State that the parties are at loggerheads and in Page 3 of 6 view of the dispute and since the conciliation has failed as informed by the learned ADM, Bhubaneswar, to avoid any serious law and order situation, the prohibitory order as per Annexure-3 has been passed. 9. The Court is not inclined to consider the dispute concerning the claim over the office bearers of the Jharapada Durga Puja Committee, Jharapada since rival contention is advanced by the private opposite parties, as according to Mr. Chand, learned counsel, a Puja Committee has already been constituted in the meantime. The Court is confined and concerned with the legality of the impugned order i.e. Annexure-3 since the decision of opposite party No.1 is on the premise that there is existence of breach of peace. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State submits that as per the intimation received from the local PS and in view of the cases registered against each other, the details of which have been furnished today in Court, opposite party No.1 has no other option except to direct the petitioners not to enter into the premises of the case land till 19th September, 2025 allowing them to file the show cause in reply. 10. The Court is having no material to hold that any such enquiry was held by opposite party No.1 or for that matter, any report was received before passing of the impugned order at Annexure-3. The claim is that on the intimation received from the local PS, the restraint order has been passed exercising powers under Section 163(2) BNSS. Having regard to the facts pleaded on record, case laws cited by both the sides and Page 4 of 6 submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, the Court is of the view that as the petitioners have been directed to respond with a show cause but in view of the urgency shown by Mr. Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioners with the submission that the petitioners being the office bearers of the Committee are to conduct the ensuing Durga Puja, it would be just and proper to direct opposite party No.1 to consider such response received with an order at the earliest. The Court is also of the view that before considering the reply and response of the petitioners, an opportunity of hearing is also to be allowed in so far as the private opposite parties are concerned. The Court reaches at such a conclusion in view of the rival claims of the parties and since the challenge is to the interim order at Annexure-3. The Court, as a result, in the peculiar fact situation, is of the ultimate view that the petitioners as well as the private opposite parties are to remain present before opposite party No.1 on a date fixed, whereafter, considering the reply and responses of both the sides he is to take a decision whether to make the order at Annexure-3 absolute while dealing with the proceeding in terms of Section 163(2) BNSS. 11. Accordingly, it is ordered. 12. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid to be complied with by opposite party No.1 and for the said purpose, the parties or one of their representatives shall remain present before him tomorrow i.e. on 27th August 2025 at 11 A.M. to receive further orders and Page 5 of 6 soon thereafter, to be followed by a final order in Criminal Misc. Case No.1254 of 2025. 13. Issue urgent copy of this order as per rules and in course of the day. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 26-Aug-2025 18:32:40 Page 6 of 6