Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 744 (CAL)

Mokbul Hossain v. Chittaranjan Mondal

2018-10-05

SUBRATA TALUKDAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This Court has been called upon to consider the merit in the Contempt Application, CPAN 9 of 2017 (for short CPAN) filed by the writ petitioner initially alleging deliberate violation by the Alleged Contemnor No.1 (AC1) of the order of this Court dated 30th December, 2016 in WP 30723(W) of 2016 (for short the WP). 2. During the course of hearing of the CPAN, the role of the Alleged Contemnor No.2 (AC2) has surfaced thereby necessitating adding AC2 as a party respondent to the CPAN. Both AC1 and AC2 have been defended through their Ld. Counsel. 3. It is, inter alia, alleged by the writ petitioner/applicant to the CPAN that by the order of this Court dated 30th December, 2016 in the WP, this Court directed the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) (for short DI(SE)), Uttar Dinajpur to take a decision on approving the Life Membership of the writ petitioner/applicant as a member of the Managing Committee (MC) of the Respondent No.6/the Madrasah in issue by applying Rule 6(c) of the Notification No.906-SE (S) dated 5th July, 2002 (for short the 2002 Notification) of the State Government governing Madrasah Education. In short the 2002 Notification permits the MC of the Madrasah in issue upon acceptance of a minimum contribution of Rs. 20,100/- by an individual to be approved for inclusion as a life member to the MC of the Madrasah in issue. 4. Since the writ petitioner/applicant had donated Rs. 20,100/- to the Madrasah in issue which was accepted by the MC, the DI(SE) was directed to take the decision on the application of the writ petitioner/applicant seeking approval of his claim to the Life Membership of the MC (supra). The direction of this Court was to be carried out within a specified time period. 5. It was also directed that the electoral process connected to the Constitution of the MC of the respondent No.6/the Madrasah in issue which was scheduled to be held on 30th December, 2016 would remain stayed in the interregnum awaiting the decision of the DI(SE). However, the electoral process shall revive at the end of the period of three weeks granted to the DI(SE) from the date of communication of the order. 6. Accordingly, by the order of 30th December, 2016 the WP stood disposed of. 7. The above constitute the admitted facts. 8. However, the electoral process shall revive at the end of the period of three weeks granted to the DI(SE) from the date of communication of the order. 6. Accordingly, by the order of 30th December, 2016 the WP stood disposed of. 7. The above constitute the admitted facts. 8. By filing the CPAN the writ petitioner/the applicant, inter alia, alleges that the order of this Court dated 30th December, 2016 was duly communicated to AC1/the Teacher-in-Charge (TIC) of the Madrasah in issue on the 31st of December 2016 at about 11 am through the letter of his Ld. Advocate dated 30th December, 2016. However, in spite of receipt of the communication dated 30th December, 2016, on the 31st of December, 2016 AC1/the TIC conducted the election to constitute the MC of the Madrasah in issue and thereby violated the mandate of this Court as passed on 30th December, 2016. 9. The applicant thereafter filed a complaint on the 2nd of January, 2017 before AC1/TIC alleging violation of the order dated 30th December, 2016. Therefore, the applicant, initially appearing through Ld. Advocate, Mr. Bhagbat Choudhuri, submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in the CPAN to punish AC1/TIC for acting in deliberate violation of the order dated the 30th of December, 2016. 10. However, during the pendency of the CPAN it was submitted by Mr. Choudhuri, on instruction, that the writ petitioner the applicant does not intend to proceed further with the CPAN. This Court, upon finding prima facie merit in the CPAN, although permitted Mr. Choudhuri to withdraw from the CPAN, has thereafter proceeded with the CPAN taking suo motu cognisance in the contempt proceeding. 11. The defence has been taken in his Affidavit-in-Opposition (A/O) to the CPAN by AC1/TIC that on the 2nd of May, 2017 he received a copy of the CPAN by speed post. From the CPAN, AC1/TIC was able to gather that the WP was moved before this Court on the 30th December, 2016. AC1/TIC denied service of the WP on him by the writ petitioner/applicant prior to moving the same before this Court on 30th December, 2016. 12. From the CPAN, AC1/TIC was able to gather that the WP was moved before this Court on the 30th December, 2016. AC1/TIC denied service of the WP on him by the writ petitioner/applicant prior to moving the same before this Court on 30th December, 2016. 12. It is pleaded that although the order dated 30th December, 2016 is stated to have been served to AC1/TIC on 31st December, 2016, knowledge of the order was obtained by him only on 6th January, 2017, i.e. the date of issuance of the Memo by the DI(SE), Uttar Dinajpur convening the hearing to be held on 17th January, 2017 at the office of the latter to discuss the steps to be taken in terms of the solemn order. 13. On 17th January, 2017 AC1/TIC claims to have attended the hearing before the DI(SE) and, by Memo dated 19th January, 2017 the DI(SE) upon recording the submissions of the petitioner/applicant and the AC1/TIC deemed to approve the petitioner/applicant as a Life Member of the Madrasah in issue prospectively from the date of its next constitution. 14. AC1/TIC takes the further stand that the applicant did not raise any objection at the meeting called by the DI(SE) (supra) dated 17th January, 2017 that the steps taken to approve him prospectively as a Life Member of the Madrasah in issue were in violation of the order dated 30th December, 2016. It is averred that although the CPAN was affirmed on the 3rd of January, 2017, the point was never taken in the CPAN that the meeting dated 31st December, 2016 to constitute the MC of the Madrasah in issue was held in breach of the order of this Court dated 30th December, 2016. 15. Having taken the above stand, the AC1/TIC adopts a parallel narrative which can be accessed from Paragraphs (h) to (e) of his A/O to the CPAN. It would be useful for this discussion to reproduce the narrative as would appear from Paragraphs (h) to (l) of the A/O:- “(h) I say, that I neither received copy of WP 30723(W) /2016; nor the order dated 30/12/2016 on 30/12/2016 or 02/01/2017 signed acknowledged by one Sadananda Roy. It would be useful for this discussion to reproduce the narrative as would appear from Paragraphs (h) to (l) of the A/O:- “(h) I say, that I neither received copy of WP 30723(W) /2016; nor the order dated 30/12/2016 on 30/12/2016 or 02/01/2017 signed acknowledged by one Sadananda Roy. The said Sadananda Roy is an approved peon of the concerned Madrasah who was never authorized either by the Teacher-in-Charge or the Administrator of the institution to receive any document on their behalf by putting any seal to any letter. I say that although from pages 19, 23 and 25 of the ‘said petition’ it appears that Sadananda Roy received certain documents concerning WP 30723(W)/2016, the same were never handed over to me by the said Sadananda Roy and it is only upon receipt of a copy of the ‘said petition’ that I have come to learn that 3 documents were received in a highly deceptive manner on behalf of the Madrasah and on my behalf on 30/12/2016, 31/12/2016 and 02/01/2017 as is appearing at pages 19, 23 and 25 of the ‘said petitioner’. At the cost of prolixity I repeat that none of such documents wer handed over to me by the said Sri Sadananda Roy, prior to holding the meeting on 31/12/2016 or even thereafter. I had no knowledge about subsistence of the order dated 30/12/2016 passed by the Hon’ble Justice Subrata Talukdar in WP 30723(W)/2016. Having regard to such, I respectfully submit that I have not violated the order dated 30/12/2016 willfully, deliberately or contumaciously, since the same was not within my knowledge prior to the meeting taking place on 31/12/2016 at 1 pm. (i) Sri Sadananda Roy, the approved peon of the said madrasah was not authorized by me to act as my agent; neither was he authorized by me to use any seal of the said Madrasah or my official designation. As a matter of fact, the seal of “Teacher-in-Charge” which has been used by said Sadananda Roy is not the official seal of my designation and I crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to produce the official seal and appropriate impression of the same at the time of hearing, if necessary. (j) 30/12/2016, pertinent to note was a Friday. As a matter of fact, the seal of “Teacher-in-Charge” which has been used by said Sadananda Roy is not the official seal of my designation and I crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to produce the official seal and appropriate impression of the same at the time of hearing, if necessary. (j) 30/12/2016, pertinent to note was a Friday. In the said Madrasah every Friday is the weekly holiday since its inception, in order to enable the students, who mostly profess and practise Islam as their religion, to offer their Friday prayers. On a holiday when the said Madrasah is officially closed, no official communication, can at all be received by anyone, and if such communication has been received by the said Sadananda Roy, an approved peon of the said Madrasah, it was done in his individual capacity without informing me and the illegality of such acceptance cannot be attributed to me. (k) The applicant on 31/12/2016 could have directly come to me prior to holding of the meeting in order to bring the contents of the order dated 30/12/2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court to my knowledge. I would have been duty bound to accept such order. But the applicant did not do so and instead acquired an acknowledgement from the said approved peon of the said Madrasah who was neither authorized by me nor was acting as my agent. It is also significant to note that in the receipts acknowledged by the said Sadananda Roy at pages 19, 23 and 25 of the ‘said petition’, the recipient has signed in his individual capacity without mentioning that he has received it for and on behalf of the Madrasah or its Teacher-in-Charge. (l) I respectfully submit that if a document is received by a person to whom the document is not addressed to, it is incumbent upon him to demonstrate in the receipt, as to for whom and on whose behalf he has received the said document. If he fails to do so or does not do so, such service must be treated as inadequate service having no authority and/or legal strength.” 16. The essential stand taken by the AC1/TIC is that as on the date of the meeting to constitute the MC held on 31st December, 2016 at around 1 pm, there was no occasion for the AC1/TIC to have knowledge of the order dated 30th December, 2016. 17. The essential stand taken by the AC1/TIC is that as on the date of the meeting to constitute the MC held on 31st December, 2016 at around 1 pm, there was no occasion for the AC1/TIC to have knowledge of the order dated 30th December, 2016. 17. Having regard to the narrative of AC1/TIC that he did not have knowledge of the order of this Court dated 30th December, 2016 till the 6th of January, 2017, the latter being the date of issue of the Memo by the DI(SE), this Court is now required to turn its attention to the stand taken by the added alleged Contemnor/AC2. For the convenience of this discussion it would be useful to reproduce Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Affidavit of AC2 to the CPAN:- “5. I respectfully submit that my educational qualification is Madhyamik Pass. I passed Mashyamik Pariksha in 1989 conducted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. I am an approved Group ‘D’ staff (Peon) in the ‘said Madrasah’ since 01/12/2004. Not being a person having higher education and by reason of being a Group ‘D’ staff of the ‘said Madrasah’. I candidly state before this Hon’ble Court that I am completely ignorant about litigations and the nooks and corners of the legal world. As a matter of fact, this is the first occasion in my life that I have been impleaded in a litigation before any Court of law. 6. I say that by the order dated 19/05/2017 I was impleaded as the alleged contemnor no.2 in the present proceeding. I am affirming this Affidavit-in terms of the Order dated 12.06.2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court. 7. Although I can sign in English, but by reason of not having higher education and by reason of being a Group ‘D’ Peon in a recognized Government aided Madrasah, I cannot read lengthy texts written in English language. I consider it necessary to place the aforesaid fact on record. 8. 7. Although I can sign in English, but by reason of not having higher education and by reason of being a Group ‘D’ Peon in a recognized Government aided Madrasah, I cannot read lengthy texts written in English language. I consider it necessary to place the aforesaid fact on record. 8. I respectfully submit that leaving aside the issues which have been raised in the ‘said application’, and the ‘said Affidavit’ the questions which need inputs from me as apparently appears to me from the order dated 19/05/2017 and 12.06.2017, are as follows:- (i) whether I as an approved Group ‘D’ staff (Peon) of the ‘said Madrasah’ had the authority to receive any document on behalf of the Managing Committee or the Teacher-in-Charge of the ‘said Madrasah’. (ii) whether I received any communication, which communicated the order dated 30/12/2017, on 30.12.2017 violation whereof is being alleged in the present proceeding, on behalf of the Teacher-in-Charge of the ‘said Madrasah’. (iii) If at all I received such communication, did I hand it over to the Teacher-in-Charge of the ‘said Madrasah’. 9. I say that I am unaware about the complications of court matters; an ignorance which I must confess before this Hon’ble Court. I say that as an approved peon it is not my official duty to receive letters addressed to the Managing Committee or the Teacher-in-Charge, I was not authorized either by the Managing Committee or by the Teacher-in-Charge of the ‘said Madrasah’ to receive any document concerning any court matter. I received the Advocate’s communication dated 30/12/2016 [on 30/123/2016] out of ignorance, good faith and trust. The applicant Mokbul Hossain came to may residence on 30.12.2016 and told me to receive it for the Teacher-in-Charge have already been verbally informed about such document. Since the applicant is a resident of the adjacent village, whom I Know since my infancy, I never doubted his statement and as a naive Group ‘D’ Peon did receive the Advocate’s communication, which I understand now, was a communication of the order dated 30/12/2016, passed by this Hon’ble Court. Since the applicant made a statement to me that the Teacher-in-Charge is already informed, I never considered it necessary to even handover the document personally to the Teacher-in-Charge, Chittaranjan Mondal. Since the applicant made a statement to me that the Teacher-in-Charge is already informed, I never considered it necessary to even handover the document personally to the Teacher-in-Charge, Chittaranjan Mondal. These are the true facts which I lay before this Hon’ble Court with utmost respect and may be treated as my response to the queries stated above. I was never told by the petitioner that the document, which was handed over to me on 30.12.2016 contained information concerning an order passed by this Hon’ble Court and in fact, I did not realize so. I have seen the seal of the Teacher-in- Charge affixed at page 23 of the ‘said application’ and I say that I did not affix any seal, while accepting the letter on 30.12.2016. I do not know, who has affixed the seal of the Teacher-in-Charge at page 23 of the ‘said application’. 10. The Madrasah where I work as an approved Peon is closed every Friday. Incidentally 30.12.2016 the day the petitioner came to may residence to get the letter annexed at page 23 received, was also a Friday, when the Madrash was closed. There was thus no question of putting the seal of the Teacher-in-Charge upon receiving the aforesaid document dated 30.12.2016.’ 18. In his Supplementary Affidavit AC2 essentially reiterates the stand taken in his Affidavit to the CPAN and purports to suggest before this Court that since the “contempt applicant in writing wanted to withdraw the contempt application as is evident from the order dated 18/09/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court’, the contempt proceeding be dropped. 19. At the hearing before this Court the Resolution Register of the Madrasah in issue is produced whereby the office bearers to its MC were appointed. The meeting was held on 31st December, 2016, Saturday at 1 pm in terms of the Resolution Book and signed by AC1/TIC on the same date, i.e. 31st December, 2016 at 2 pm. Needless to reiterate the resolution dated 31st December, 2016 does not make any mention of the order of this Court dated 30th December, 2016. 20. Also at the hearing the Attendance Register of employees of the Madrasah in issue for the months of December, 2016 and January, 2017 were produced. The point has been taken at the Bar by Mrs. Chakraborty, Ld. 20. Also at the hearing the Attendance Register of employees of the Madrasah in issue for the months of December, 2016 and January, 2017 were produced. The point has been taken at the Bar by Mrs. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate for AC2 that 30th December, 2016 being a Friday, the Madrasah in issue had its weekly off day. However, AC2 could not attend to his duty on the subsequent dates, i.e. 31st December, 2016 up to the 5th of January, 2017 taking Casual Leave (CL) for attending to the illness of his wife. However, there is no pleading on affidavit of the abovenoted submission made by Ld. Advocate for AC2. Neither any documentary evidence is provided to demonstrate that the wife of AC2 suddenly fell ill on the 30th December, 2016 and such illness continued up to the 5th of January, 2017. 21. Before arriving at its findings this Court must also make mention of the legal authority cited by Mr. Basu, Ld. Senior Counsel for AC1 as reported in AIR 1952 Cal 919 , to drive home the point that in order to initiate contempt proceedings it would be first necessary for the petitioner/applicant to establish that AC2 possessed personal knowledge of the order of the Court of which he is charged with violating. Mr. Basu submits that AC1 did not have personal knowledge of the order dated 30th December, 2016 as on the date and time of the meeting to constitute the MC of the Madrasah in issue on 31st December, 2016 at 1 pm. Therefore, having obtained post facto knowledge of the order dated 30th December, 2016 from the Memo of DI(SE) dated 6th January, 2017, AC1 is not guilty of wilful disobedience. 22. Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed this Court arrives at the following findings:- (I) That admittedly on 30th December, 2016 this Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the DI(SE) to take a decision in accordance with law on the claim of the writ petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of the order. (II) That admittedly this Court also directed that the electoral process connected to the constitution of the MC of the Madrasah in issue/the respondent No.6 to the writ petition shall remain stayed for the period of three weeks made available to the DI(SE) to take a decision in accordance with law and in terms of the observations made by Court in the order dated 30th December, 2016. (III) That admittedly again the stay on the electoral process would cease to exist at the end of the period granted to the DI(SE) for taking his decision thereby reviving the electoral process (supra). (IV) That admittedly the order of this Court dated 30th December, 2016 was communicated through fax and also delivered to the office of the DI(SE) on the same date, i.e. 30th December, 2016 and such shall appear from the record. Therefore, as from the date of communication dated 30th December, 2016 to the DI(SE), the period of three weeks granted to the DI(SE) to pass his reasoned order as well as the stay operative on the constitution of the MC commenced. (V) It is axiomatic that the order of 30th December, 2016 not having been subject to any recall, modification, review or appeal, during such period of three weeks beginning the 30th of December, 2016 the electoral process connected to the Madrasah in issue would remain stayed. The period covered by the stay as granted by this Court includes all the dates mentioned by AC1 in his defence, viz. 31st December, 2016, 6th January, 2017 and the 19th of January, 2017 being respectively the date on which the resolution to constitute a new MC was adopted; the date on which the AC1/TIC claims to have obtained knowledge of the order of the Court from the Memo of the DI(SE); and lastly the date on which the purported decision was taken at the office of the DI(SE) in presence of the writ petitioner to prospectively appoint him as Life Member of the MC from the date of its next constitution. (VI) It is of relevance to note that defence of his knowledge or, lack of it, as claimed by AC1/TIC is sought to be covered, on the one part, through his pleadings in the A/O prior to Paragraphs (h) to (e) (supra). (VI) It is of relevance to note that defence of his knowledge or, lack of it, as claimed by AC1/TIC is sought to be covered, on the one part, through his pleadings in the A/O prior to Paragraphs (h) to (e) (supra). It is fairly apparent that with AC2 being added to the contempt proceeding the stand of AC1 would have to be additionally fine tuned factoring in the stand of AC2 and vice versa. Between the two, it again appears fairly apparent that AC2 stood like Casabianca on the burning deck faithfully following orders in his role as a Group ‘D’ peon and sacrificing five valuable CL due to him out of the total available to him for the whole year, during the opening days of the first month itself. (VII) Although AC2 takes the stand that the day being a Friday and, also being the weekly off day for the Madrasah in issue, AC2 could handover the communication of the writ petitioner/applicant only on the next date, i.e. 31st December, 2016 when he would report for duties at around 11 am, to obviate the contingency of knowledge being conveyed to AC1 by AC2 of the all important communication of the order of Court as attached to his statements, both oral through Ld. Advocate and from the record, AC2, in view of the suddenness of the controversy, stayed away from joining duties citing illness of his wife till the 5th of January, 2017. As discussed above, no contemporaneous medical certificate has been produced by AC2 in Court. The leave availed by AC2 was Casual in nature since, prior illness or indication of illness requiring the bread earning member of the family to drop his office for nearly a week, would have called for an application for leave on medical grounds to be submitted in advance. (VIII) Notwithstanding the efforts by AC2 to wash himself clean of any stains connected to the CPAN proceedings by citing first, ignorance of the gravity of the communication, second, good faith in accepting the communication; and, third the contingency of his wife’ illness; this Court notices that AC2 aged 44 years at the time of affirming his affidavit to the contempt, had been a Group ‘D’ peon of the Madrasah in issue since 2004. That means that he had completed 12 years of regular service when the facts connected to this CPAN saw light of the day. In other words, AC2 was not a babe in the woods. It is an admitted position that the petitioner/applicant arrived at the door of AC2 with the communication of an order of Court and, not with an invitation to dine. Therefore, for AC2 to take the stand now that he did not understand the gravity attached to a communication of an order of Court is puerile at the lowest. For AC2 not to have communicated the fact of the existence of an order of Court to AC1, without attempting to understand its ramifications, is contemptuous at the highest. This Court therefore is placed with a situation where the excuse has compounded the fault. (IX) This Court must next notice the argument in corollary that in the present days of mobile connectivity, AC2 has not touched upon the requirement of having to contact AC1 intimating the arrival of the petitioner/applicant with the order of Court deserving of undiluted attention and action. On his part AC1 carried a duty with him to become apprised of the direction of this Court and, even taking cognisance of his stand that he (AC1) came to know of the order only on 6th January, 2017 through the letter of the DI(SE), it was incumbent upon AC1 either to have kept in abeyance the Resolution constituting the MC dated 31st December, 2016 or, rolled back such action without insisting on the prospective Life Membership of the petitioner having regard to the fact that the order of stay was in full force during the period of three weeks pending a decision by the DI(SE). (X) For each and all of the above reasons, the cumulative conduct of AC1 and AC2 has been in subversion of the order of the Court with its attending majesty and dignity. This Court carries no illusion regards the wilfulness of such subversive and contumacious conduct on the part of AC1 and, also finds that AC2 has abetted the contempt. The facile suggestion by AC2 to drop the contempt at the instance of the petitioner/the applicant, is not supported by the law on the subject which is trite on the point that a proceeding for contempt can be just a two-way traffic between the Court and the alleged Contemnors. The facile suggestion by AC2 to drop the contempt at the instance of the petitioner/the applicant, is not supported by the law on the subject which is trite on the point that a proceeding for contempt can be just a two-way traffic between the Court and the alleged Contemnors. (XI) Next, this Court is required to address itself to the question of the seal being placed on the communication received by AC2 of the Madrasah in issue which, AC2 denies. Notwithstanding the denial by AC2 of the seal of the Madrasah in issue being put by him on the communication as received on 30th December, 2016, it does appear from the record that AC2 has received the communication in his hand writing. (XII) Having received the communication of an order of Court it was incumbent upon AC2 to have forthwith by the opening hours of the next working day bring such communication to the notice of AC1 notwithstanding the fact that he abstained from duties on and from the next date. (XIII) This Court must now finally notice the precision attached to an act of contempt as laid down at Paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment relied upon by Ld. Senior Counsel for AC1 as reported in AIR 1952 SC 919, In Re: Tarafatullah Mandal & Ors. vs. S. N. Maitra & Ors.. With respect this Court notices that the conditions connected to knowledge and responsibility attached to the role played by AC1 stand fully satisfied in the facts of this case. Culpability in abetting the contempt also lies at the doorstep of AC2. 23. In the context of the above discussion, reference may be made to the observations as made In Re: T. R. Dhananjaya vs. J. Vasudevan, reported in 1995 (5) SCC 619 for the proposition that in the event any of the alleged Contemnors and, particularly AC1, had any difficulty in implementing the order of this Court keeping in mind the stay order of three weeks granted, this Court ought to have been approached for obtaining the necessary clarification prior to conferring Life Membership on a prospective basis to the petitioner/applicant. 24. This Court must also remind itself of the salutary observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court In Re: Mohd. 24. This Court must also remind itself of the salutary observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court In Re: Mohd. Aslam Alias Bhure, Acchan Rizvi vs. Union of India, State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in 1994 (6) SCC 442 that “it is not merely positive acts of violation but also surreptitious and indirect aids to circumvention and violation of the orders that are equally impermissible’. 25. For the above reasons, the Rule is made absolute. 26. The Contemnor No.1, Mr. Chittaranjan Mondal, is committed to suffer simple civil imprisonment of three months. 27. The Contemnor No.2, Mr. Sadanada Roy, is directed to indemnify the petitioner an amount of Rs. 20,100/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand One Hundred) which is imposed by way of fine within a period of two weeks from this date, failing which, to suffer simple civil imprisonment of one month. 28. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to forthwith issue warrant of arrest against Mr. Chittaranjan Mondal being the Contemnor No.1 and the same is to be sent to the local Police Station through the office of the Deputy Sheriff, High Court at Calcutta for immediate compliance and implementation of this order. 29. Let the original record of the Resolution Book and the Attendance Registers be returned to Ld. Counsel for the Contemnor No.1, after preserving xerox copies of the same and, on obtaining proper receipt. 30. CPAN 9 of 2017 stands accordingly disposed of. 31. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities. 32. Later Stay of the order is prayed for by Ld. Counsel for the Contemnor No.1. Prayer for stay stands refused.