Bimal Kumar Das & Anr vs Somnath Pal

Arindam Sinha, J

This contempt application is directed against order dated 19th November, 2014, which dealt with applicants’ writ petition. Mr. Roy, learned

advocate appears on behalf of applicants and submits, there has been wilful and deliberate violation of directions made in said order. He emphasizes

the direction in the order, as is extracted therefrom and reproduced below:-

“After consideration of the impugned order, I do not find any legally sustainable reason in support of his decision.

The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

The respondent-Kolkata Municipal Corporation is directed to take a decision in the above matter in the light of the observations made hereinabove

after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner and respondent nos.8 and 9 and to communicate such decision to them

within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.â€​

He submits, when order of retention was quashed and direction for reconsideration of the matter made, delayed reiteration of such retention amounts

to contempt on two counts. Firstly on delayed purported compliance and secondly on no compliance since reiteration of retention. This is because

alleged contemner is relying on an order signed on 9th August, 2016 by Deputy Chief Engineer (Building)/South. The Engineer cannot be delegetee of

Kolkata Municipal Corporation, directed to have made the enquiry. Reiteration of quashed order of retention amounts to contempt.

Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of alleged contemner and draws attention to the order dated 9th August, 2016. Referring to

page 2 therein, he relies on, inter alia, following as compliance:-

“The parties appeared and placed their respective submission and shows documents in support of their respective contentions. However, it is

submitted that the premises in question is fully occupied. I do not found any reason for suffering of the petitioner with the construction made by the

private respondents. The premises is occupied by several Owners.â€​

He submits, a reasoned order has been passed by the Corporation, who takes responsibility for it. If applicants are aggrieved, they must mount

substantial challenge. So far as the contempt application is concerned, there has been compliance. He seeks unqualified apology for delayed

compliance.

It appears from order dated 19th November, 2014, the Corporation was directed to take a decision in light of observation made earlier in the order. On

perusal of the order, observation therein appears to be as reproduced below:-

“So far as the question of alleged unauthorised construction of causing disturbance of the movement of the petitioners to his water, drainage and

septic pipeline is concerned, it requires a decision from the competent authority.â€​

Reference to compliance urged by alleged contemner, on extract from order of the Engineer, reproduced above, goes to show that the grievance of

applicants was dealt with. Whether rightly or wrongly is not something that can be gone into in contempt jurisdiction. Also, the question whether order

of retention set aside in challenge by writ petition can be reiterated is another question, which cannot be gone into in this jurisdiction. Applicants are at

liberty to mount challenge.

For reasons above, nothing further need be said in this contempt application. It is disposed of accordingly.