Introduction:
In the matter of Aroop Kumar Deo & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 10157 of 2025, the Orissa High Court addressed the issue of unauthorized construction of a vending zone adjacent to the boundary wall of the second campus of Madhusudan Law University at Rehman Square, Jobra, Cuttack. The petitioners, represented by Advocate Prasanna Kumar Nanda, contended that the construction posed threats to traffic management, environmental conditions, and the safety of students, particularly the 300 female students residing in the newly built hostels. The Court had previously issued an interim stay on the construction on May 20, 2025, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bombay Hawkers’ Union & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. (1985), which disallowed hawking within 100 meters of educational institutions.
Arguments:
Petitioners’ Arguments:
The petitioners argued that the construction of the vending zone would exacerbate traffic congestion, lead to waterlogging, increase noise pollution, and compromise the academic environment of the university. They emphasised that the safety and security of the female students would be at risk and that the construction would hinder the university’s plans for beautification and landscaping. Furthermore, they alleged that the construction activities were accelerated post the issuance of the stay order, indicating a deliberate attempt to render the petition infructuous.
Respondents’ Arguments:
The Commissioner of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation (CMC) and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Cuttack, appeared virtually before the Court. The Commissioner claimed that he had instructed the Engineering Department to halt the construction following the stay order. However, he alleged that certain ‘hooligans’ continued the construction in violation of the Court’s directive. The DCP corroborated this claim and assured the Court of compliance with its orders.
Court’s Judgment:
The Vacation Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo expressed strong displeasure over the violation of its stay order. The Court noted that the Commissioner failed to take immediate and effective steps to prevent the unauthorised construction, thereby flouting the Court’s directive. Live video footage presented during the hearing confirmed the continuation of construction activities, including the installation of galvanised iron roofs over certain cabins.
The Court emphasised that deliberate disobedience of its orders amounts to contempt and highlighted the Commissioner’s responsibility for the acts of omission and commission post the issuance of the stay order. However, considering the assurances provided by the Commissioner and the DCP to enforce the stay order and prevent further violations, the Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings at this stage.
The Court directed the Commissioner to take appropriate measures, including the installation of barbed wire fencing with iron/concrete pillars, to secure the area and prevent any vending activities. The matter has been listed for further consideration on June 30, 2025.