Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 272 (CAL)

CHIRANJIB MANNA v. PRASENJIT GHATAK

2019-02-26

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2019
JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. 2. The instant appeal arises out of an order dated 28th August, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in a contempt proceeding. 3. By the order dated 28th August, 2018, the learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that the alleged contemnors were not guilty of violation of the order dated 16th January, 2018. The learned Single, however, proceeded to award costs to the tune of Rs.30,000/- upon the petitioner, being the appellant herein in the following terms:- "This order will not prevent the petitioner from obtaining supply in terms of the order dated January 16, 2018 provided the petitioner pays a costs assessed at Rs.30,000/- with the State Legal Service Authority, Kolkata. This costs is imposed in view of the frivolous nature of the contempt petition." 4. The contempt application, being CPAN 557 of 2018, was accordingly disposed of. 5. At the time of hearing of the appeal, it is submitted by the learned advocate representing the appellant that imposition of costs of Rs.30,000/- ought not to have been awarded considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. We notice from the order dated 28th August, 2018, that CPAN 557 of 2018 was the second contempt application. The learned Single Judge in the second contempt application proceeded to observe to the effect that at the time of first contempt petition, the petitioner did not deposit the costs, charges and expenses for the purpose of obtaining electric supply. The contempt petition was dismissed on 30th April, 2018. 7. It is the specific contention of the appellant that all costs, charges and expenses as imposed by the electricity company have been paid. In this context, the learned advocate for the appellant refers to page 27 of the stay application, being CAN 7768 of 2018. He further contends that by a letter dated 22nd February, 2018, the appellant had written to the District Engineer, Howrah District CESC Limited referring to the amount of Rs.1,200/- paid on account of security charge. In the said letter, he had stated that he was capable of fulfilling all the conditions for the purpose of installation of a new meter. He further contends that by a letter dated 22nd February, 2018, the appellant had written to the District Engineer, Howrah District CESC Limited referring to the amount of Rs.1,200/- paid on account of security charge. In the said letter, he had stated that he was capable of fulfilling all the conditions for the purpose of installation of a new meter. Another letter which the learned advocate for the appellant has referred to, is a letter dated 3rd May, 2018, wherefrom it appears that he was ready and willing to deposit necessary police cost (fees) for police assistance. This letter appears to be addressed to the District Engineer, Howrah District, C.E.S.C. Ltd. by the appellant. 8. Considering this aspect of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant is not required to pay the costs of Rs.30,000/- with the State Legal Service Authority, Kolkata, as directed by the learned Single Judge. 9. The impugned order - to the extent indicated above - stands modified accordingly. 10. The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties. Arindam Mukherjee, J. : I agree.