SC grants 4 weeks to Odisha for reply on AP's affidavit over polls in 'disputed areas'

The panchayat elections were held on February 13 by Andhra Pradesh in the disputed areas, on which Odisha claims ownership.

Published: 19th February 2021 01:47 PM  |   Last Updated: 19th February 2021 01:47 PM   |  A+A-

Supreme Court

Supreme Court (Photo| Shekhar Yadav, EPS)


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Friday granted four weeks to Odisha to reply to Andhra Pradesh government's affidavit on its contempt plea against senior officials of AP for notifying panchayat polls in three 'disputed areas'.

The panchayat elections were held on February 13 by Andhra Pradesh in the disputed areas, on which Odisha claims ownership.

A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari took note of the submission of senior advocate Vikas Singh that Odisha be given some time to file its reply on the Andhra Pradesh government's affidavit.

In its affidavit, the AP government told the apex court that there was no breach of undertaking or its direction and it has been duly administrating its own territories and has not infringed upon the area of Odisha.

The Naveen Patnaik government has challenged the AP notification for the local body polls with regard to the disputed area and said the notification amounts to invading Odisha's territory.

More than five decades since the first status quo order on the territorial jurisdiction dispute with AP over 21 villages, Odisha has moved the top court once again seeking contempt action against officials of the southern state for notifying panchayat polls in three of its villages.

The dispute over territorial jurisdiction over 21 villages popularly called as Kotia Group of villages first reached the top court in 1968 when Odisha on the basis of three notifications -- issued on December 1, 1920, October 8, 1923 and October 15, 1927 -- claimed that Andhra Pradesh had trespassed into its well-defined territory.

During the pendency of the suit filed by Odisha, the top court had on December 2, 1968 directed both the states to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit and said, there shall be no further ingress or egress on the territories in dispute, on the part of either party .

The suit filed by Odisha under Article 131 (the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over any dispute arising between the states or between the centre and state) of the Constitution was finally dismissed on technical grounds by the top court on March 30, 2006, and with the consent of both the states it directed that status quo be maintained till the dispute is resolved.

Now, the Odisha government has sought contempt action against AP's three senior officials -- Mude Hari Jawaharlal (contemnor-1), collector of Vizinagaram district; Adityanath Das, Chief Secretary of AP (contemnor-2), and N Ramesh Kumar, State Election Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh (contemnor-3).

Apparently, the notification issued by Jawaharlal in unison with Das and Kumar is to invade into the territory of the petitioner state at the cost of wilful violation of order of this court, the plea said.

Therefore the officials are to be called upon to explain as to why contempt proceedings shall not be drawn against them and appropriate punishment shall not be awarded to them, it said.

The Odisha government has sought notice to the the three AP officials as to why contempt proceedings not be initiated against them for wilfully violating orders dated December 2, 1968 and March 30, 2006 passed by the court in the original suit.

The petitioner state of Odisha is invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this court against the alleged contemnor for having wilfully and deliberately violated the order dated December 2, 1968 and the judgement dated March 30, 2006 passed by this court in original suit filed by State of Orissa and State of Andhra Pradesh, the plea said.

The Odisha government further claimed that administratively and otherwise, it has been in control of these villages but of late clandestinely the contemnors have entered into the impugned act of contempt by which the order of this court has been violated .

It further said Jawaharlal had on March 5, 2020, issued various notifications to conduct local body elections in the Vizinagaram district in which Salur is one of the Mandals, where the Panchayat election was also notified to be held on the schedule date.

In the notification deliberately the contemnor number 1 roped in three villages from the Kotia Group of villages' falling under the territory of Koraput district of Odisha into Salur Mandal of Vizinagaram district (AP).

Clandestinely the contemnors changed the name of the three villages of Kotia Gram Panchayat, the state government alleged.

It said that tactfully the contemnors converted these three villages of one Gram Panchayat falling under territory of Odisha to three different Gram Panchayats.

The three Gram Panchayat created by them were made part of Salur Mandal.

Odisha said although the notification was issued on March 5, 2020, the officials "made sure that it was kept a deadly secret so that local authority of the Petitioner State shall not get to know about it .

It added that for these three self-created Gram Panchayats, nomination centre has been kept 20 kilometres away in the district of Vizinagaram (AP) from these villages.

That the officials tactfully issued the impugned notification and attempted to conduct election during the pandemic time when the entire state machinery was engaged to fight COVID-19 pandemic," it said.

It said the attempt on their part to conduct the election in the newly self-named three villages pertaining to the territory of petitioner state is nothing but a wilful attempt to sabotage the dictum of this court.



Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp