Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 184 (CAL)

Kartick Chandra Mali v. Namita Mistry

2014-03-06

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2014
Judgment Prasenjit Mandal, J. This is an application under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and this has been filed by one of the writ petitioners of the W.P.(AN) No.167 of 2001 praying for imprisonment of the contemnor and other consequential reliefs for non-complying with the order dated 06th March, 2002 passed in W.P.(AN) No.167 of 2001. The petitioner and other 33 writ petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(AN) No,167 of 2001 contending inter alia that in the year 2000, applications were invited from the villagers of V.K. Pur, Rabindra Nagar, Netajinagar and Hutbay for the purpose of allotment of 34 shops under the Panchayat Samiti. Accordingly, the petitioner was allotted a shop room at Rabindra Nagar P.S. Market under certain terms and conditions such as rate of rent was Rs.250/- per month, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- as security deposit, etc. The petitioner had complied with such terms and conditions, but he was not allotted any shop room. Thereafter, the local Panchayat Samiti issued a notice which was published in the Daily Telegram dated October 25, 2001 indicating that the allotment of shop rooms made by the previous Panchayat Samiti stood cancelled. Then under compelling circumstances, the 34 writ petitioners preferred the aforesaid writ application which was allowed and the impugned notice of cancellation of allotment was quashed. The respondents were also restrained from giving any effect or further effect to the said notification in any manner. Being aggrieved by such order of the learned Single Judge, the respondents preferred an appeal being MAT No.12 of 2002 along with an application being CAN No.26 of 2002 for condonation of delay in preferring the said appeal. By an order dated July 05, 2002, a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and in consequence the said appeal was also dismissed. Thus the decision of the learned Single Judge had reached finality, but no allotment had been made as yet. Subsequently, the petitioner got a letter from the alleged contemnor, which disclosed that, by a meeting dated 19.2.2010, the security deposit would be Rs.70,000/- and the monthly rent, @Rs.800/- per month. Thus the decision of the learned Single Judge had reached finality, but no allotment had been made as yet. Subsequently, the petitioner got a letter from the alleged contemnor, which disclosed that, by a meeting dated 19.2.2010, the security deposit would be Rs.70,000/- and the monthly rent, @Rs.800/- per month. The petitioner protested and as such by a subsequent meeting dated 09th March, 2011 under the Chairmanship of the Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti of the locality, it was held that the security amount would be Rs.50,000/- and the monthly rent would be Rs.1050/- and the petitioner was requested to deposit the security amount in cash in favour of the Executive Officer, Local Panchayat Samiti by March 25, 2011, in default, it should be presumed that the petitioner was not interested to take over the possession of the said room on monthly hire basis. The petitioner gave a reply to that notice indicating that since the matter had been settled in the earlier W.P.(AN) No.167 of 2001 the letter issued by the alleged contemnor was contumacious. The writ petitioners of the earlier writ petition prayed for delivery of possession in vain. So, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the alleged contemnor has committed any breach of the order of the Court or her action with respect to the matter in dispute amounts to contumacious and in utter violation of the order of the Court deliberately. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the facts as recorded above are not in dispute. From the page no.15 of the Contempt Application under Sl. No.13 in respect of Rabindra Nagar P.S. Market, I find that the petitioner had been allotted a shop room upon certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, from page No.18 it is evident that in order to show the bona fide attitude to take possession of that shop room, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.3,000/- in cash as security deposit. Then on October 25, 2001 the Respondent Authority issued a notice in the Daily Telegram indicating that the allotments of shop rooms made by the previous Panchayat Samiti stood cancelled. Then on October 25, 2001 the Respondent Authority issued a notice in the Daily Telegram indicating that the allotments of shop rooms made by the previous Panchayat Samiti stood cancelled. The petitioner and 33 other persons filed the writ petition being W.P.(AN) No.167 of 2001 and by an order dated 06th March, 2002, the said writ petition was disposed of in the following manner:- “In view of the aforesaid circumstances, when there is no justification shown in support of such cancellation nor anything has been shown that the allotments in favour of the petitioners were in any way bad or irregular or that any requisite formalities were not complied with at the time of allotment of shop rooms in favour of the petitioners, the contentions of the petitioners are to be accepted. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice of cancellation of allotment of the shop rooms in favour of the petitioners is hereby quashed. The respondents are restrained from giving any effect or further effect to the said notification in any manner whatsoever. There will be no order as to costs.” From Annexure-C, it appears that the respondents preferred an appeal being MAT No.12 of 2002 along with an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal and by an order dated July 5, 2002, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected and in consequence the said Mandamus Appeal had been dismissed. No other step had been taken by the respondents of the said writ petition and as a result the order dated 06th March, 2002 passed in W.P.(AN) No.167 of 2001 had attained finality. Therefore, in my view, the alleged contemnor is bound by such order. From Annexure-D collectively appearing at page No.43, it is evident that letter of allotment was issued in favour of the allottees for handing over the possession of the respective shop rooms on March 14, 2005, but the delivery of possession had not been done in compliance with the order passed by the Hon’ble Court. From Annexure-E collectively appearing at page No.45, I find that the terms and conditions had been changed and the ultimate decision was to the effect that the allottees were requested to deposit the security amount at the enhanced rate of Rs.50,000/- for general category and the monthly rent would be Rs.1050/- instead of Rs.250/-. From Annexure-E collectively appearing at page No.45, I find that the terms and conditions had been changed and the ultimate decision was to the effect that the allottees were requested to deposit the security amount at the enhanced rate of Rs.50,000/- for general category and the monthly rent would be Rs.1050/- instead of Rs.250/-. The petitioner was directed to deposit such amount by March 25, 2011. The petitioner was informed of such fact by letter dated March 14, 2011 by the alleged contemnor. The petitioner and others gave a representation in vain requesting the alleged contemnor to rescind, withdraw and recall the letter dated March 14, 2011 and any action initiated on the basis of the said letter. From the above facts and circumstances it is clear that the issuance of the letter dated March 14, 2011 by the alleged contemnor had been done in utter violation of the order dated March 6, 2002 passed by this Hon’ble Court which had attained finality. Therefore, the request made by the alleged contemnor by issuing the letter dated March 14, 2011 cannot be stated to be conformity with the order dated March 6, 2002 passed by the Hon’ble Court, Calcutta in the said writ petition and in my view that had been done deliberately in order to raise funds in utter violation of the order of the Court. While issuing the letter dated March 14, 2011 it had been indicated that rent for the room had been increased on the basis of actual expenditure incurred for construction of the said market buildings and the amount of security deposit was decided in a meeting held on March 09, 2011 under the Chairmanship of the contemnor after discussion with other members of the allotment committee. It was also indicated that such decision was unanimous. Whatever may be the decision of the concerned allotment committee unanimously, in my view, the concerned committee including the alleged contemnor cannot take any decision contrary to the solemn order of the Court which had attained finality. While arguing the case on behalf of the petitioner Mr. K. Sabir, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has referred to the decisions of (1995) 5 Scale 34 [T.R. Dhananjaya Vs. J. Vasudevan], (2001) 10 SCC 496 [K.G. Derasari Vs. Union of India], (2004) 7 SCC 261 [Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand] and (2006) 0 AIR(SC) 909 [Union of India Vs. K. Sabir, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has referred to the decisions of (1995) 5 Scale 34 [T.R. Dhananjaya Vs. J. Vasudevan], (2001) 10 SCC 496 [K.G. Derasari Vs. Union of India], (2004) 7 SCC 261 [Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand] and (2006) 0 AIR(SC) 909 [Union of India Vs. Subedar Devassy PV] and thus Mr. Sabir has contended that in dealing with an application for contempt, the concerned Court is to consider whether the order had reached its finality and whether the same had been complied with or not. The question whether the order is right or wrong is not the matter for consideration for being obeyed, but the question is whether the order is in force or not. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court cannot traverse beyond the order. It is to be seen whether the contemnor had committed any default in complying with the directions given in the order. The Court is not required to consider the correctness or otherwise of the order or to give additional directions or to delete any direction. On the other hand, Mr. Tabraiz, learned advocate appearing for the respondent/contemnor, has contended that the earlier committee gave allotment upon taking a nominal amount and such allotment was given to the near relations of the authority by making nepotism etc. When such fact came to the knowledge of the contemnor, the matter was discussed by the allotment committee and the security deposit as well as the rent had been enhanced according to the market price and as such the letter dated March 14, 2011 was issued by the contemnor. I cannot agree with such submission of Mr. Tabraiz, learned advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor, in view of the fact that such submissions are contrary to the order dated March 6, 2002 in W.P.(AN) No.167 of 2001, which had attained finality after dismissal of the appeal preferred by the respondents. Therefore, in my view, the decisions referred to by Mr. K. Sabir, learned advocate for the petitioner, which relate to the general principles as to contempt of Court will be fully applicable in the instant case. Accordingly, in my view, the materials on record have proved that the alleged contemnor had violated the solemn order of the Hon’ble Court deliberately by issuing the letter dated March 14, 2011. K. Sabir, learned advocate for the petitioner, which relate to the general principles as to contempt of Court will be fully applicable in the instant case. Accordingly, in my view, the materials on record have proved that the alleged contemnor had violated the solemn order of the Hon’ble Court deliberately by issuing the letter dated March 14, 2011. However, since the letter dated March 14, 2011 lays down a request to deposit security money at the enhanced rate and also to pay the rent at the enhanced rate within a certain time, in my view, the alleged contemnor cannot be held guilty of contempt. Since the petitioner and others gave a reply to the letter dated March 14, 2011 to the alleged contemnor or the person holding the post at present by issuing a letter dated April 5, 2011 (vide annexure at page No.47 of the application) and no action has yet been taken in this regard, in my view, the prayer ‘A’ of the application shall not be granted. But the prayer ‘B’ appearing at page No.11 of the application shall be granted. The allotment order dated 28.04.2000 in respect of the petitioner appearing as annexure at page No.15 of the Contempt application must be implemented by the alleged contemnor or the person holding the post at present within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. It is clarified that the alleged contemnor or the person holding the post at present is also directed to comply with the prayer ‘B’ as made at page No.11 of the application within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. The contempt application is disposed of in the manner indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.