Cuttack: The Orissa High Court on Thursday expressed strong displeasure over Cuttack Collector Dattatraya Bhausaheb Shinde’s attempt to replace a committee constituted by it to tackle the city’s worsening traffic congestion, observing that he was “trying to act as an appellate authority over an order passed by this Court”.A division bench of Justices K R Mohapatra and V Narasingh rejected the Collector’s application seeking modification of its Aug 13 order and termed his suggestion to replace the committee “presumptuous” and an “ex facie” breach of the “Lakshman rekha” of propriety.The court had constituted a committee headed by the DCP, Cuttack, with an ADM representing the district administration, a CMC deputy commissioner and a CDA officer of equivalent rank on Aug 13. It was tasked with easing traffic congestion, removing road and drain obstructions and preventing their recurrence.The Collector, in an application, suggested replacing the ADM with a Tahasildar or, alternatively, entrusting the task to the District Road Safety Committee.The bench rejected the proposal, saying it had consciously constituted a separate committee despite being aware of the existing Traffic Management Committee and District Road Safety Committee.“The Deponent seeking substitution of the ADM by Tahasildar evidently labours under the misconception that this Court is not aware of hierarchical dispensation and functional efficacy of various authorities,” the bench observed.The court questioned the effectiveness of the District Road Safety Committee, asking, “If the District Road Safety Committee is even remotely functional, why are the roads of this ancient City and the highways leading to it in such an abysmal condition, resulting in mishaps and accidents every single day?”The court said the 2011 Traffic Management Committee headed by the police commissioner was in “a state of suspended animation” while congestion had reached “alarming proportions”.Expressing further displeasure, the bench said the Collector, while seeking modification, was effectively attempting to sit in appeal over the court’s decision. “What is more disconcerting is that the Deponent, in the garb of seeking review/modification, is trying to act as an appellate authority over an order passed by this Court,” the Judges said.The court, however, treated the episode as an “error of judgement”, noting that the Collector had “a bright career ahead”. It cautioned: “What has been done does not have the approval of this Court, what is attempted shall not be repeated.”The matter will be heard next on Sept 10.