Swastic Promoters Private Limited & Anr. vs R.N. Samanta & Ors.

In terms of the order dated 22nd July, 2021, the applicants/petitioners have served the present incumbents holding the office of the ADPS (Estt. &

PN), the Executive Engineer, PCD- I Kolkata and the Senior Sr. A.O. (Bqt) Co. of the Department of Posts, India, Office of the Chief Post Master

General, West Bengal Circle, Kolkata. The affidavit of service in this regard is taken on record.

Let these three persons be added as alleged contemnors/respondents.

Advocate for the applicants/petitioners is granted liberty to add the said three persons as alleged contemnors/respondents by course of 13th August,

2021.

Mr. A.K. Gayen, learned advocate, appears on behalf of the alleged contemnors/respondents no.1, 2 and 3. He submits that there is no contempt of

the order dated 19th February, 2003. The operative portion of the said order is set out hereunder for convenience:-

“The respondent is directed to pay the aforesaid amount within a period of a fortnight from this date to the petitioners and the petitioners

immediately thereafter will raise the issue before the appropriate Fare Rent Assessment Committee of the Postal Department and in such case, the

decision will be taken by such authority within a period of three months from the date of making such application and a reasoned order will be passed

thereon upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

So far as the current rent is concerned, the respondent will go on paying the rent of Rs.900/-per month to the petitioners and the petitioners will accept

the same without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and further fixation to be made by such authority.â€​

Referring to the first direction in the order, it is submitted by Mr. Gayen that a sum of Rs.92,700/- and a further sum of Rs.1,800/- had been paid by

the respondents on 4th March, 2003 that is within a fortnight from the date of passing of the order dated 19th February, 2003.

Mr. Gayen then says that the applicants/ petitioners were to raise the issue before the appropriate Fair Rent Assessment Committee (in short

“FRACâ€) of the Postal Department immediately upon receipt of the arrears of rent. The applicants/petitioners have done so. On such issue being

raised, the FRAC within a period of three months from the date of making such application was to decide on the issue by a reasoned order after giving

fullest opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

Referring to the minutes of the FRAC at pages 31 to 32 and 33 to 36, it is submitted by Mr. Gayen that a reasoned order has been passed by the

FRAC within the time frame provided under the order dated 19th February, 2003. He further submits that in the event the applicants/ petitioners are

unhappy with the reasoned order, the applicants/petitioners’ remedy lies elsewhere but not by invoking the contempt jurisdiction.

So far as the third part of the order is concerned, Mr. Gayen submits that as per his instruction, the respondents are paying Rs.900/- to the applicants/

petitioners every month which is received by the applicants/petitioners without prejudice to their rights and contentions. Thus, there is no contempt.

Reverting to this contention, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Baid on behalf of the applicants/petitioners submits that on a conjoint reading of the second and third

part of the order, it is apparent that the FRAC was to decide on the issue of fixation of fair rent upon the petitioner raising such issue. It will appear

from the minutes of the FRAC that the issue of fixation of fair rent was kept pending to enable the applicants/petitioners to produce authenticated

documents for the land value from a competent government authority. He refers to the letter dated 24th June, 2003 appearing at page 30, issued by

the alleged contemnor no.1 to the Director of the applicant/petitioner no.1. In terms of the said letter, the applicants/petitioners had collected the land

value from the Additional Registrar of Assurances-I, Government of West Bengal, on 26th June, 2003 and have forwarded the same to the

respondents/ contemnors by an advocate’s letter dated 30th June, 2003.

Despite such documents being furnished, further hearing has neither been given to the applicants/ petitioners nor any order fixing the fair rent after

considering such documents has been passed and published by FRAC.

Mr. Baid, therefor, submits that unless the applicants/petitioner are giving a fullest opportunity and the issue of fair rent remains undecided, there still

remains a contempt of the order dated 19th February, 2003. He also confirms that his clients are receiving Rs.900/- every month without prejudice to

their rights and contentions sent by the Postal Department through money order.

After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, I am of the view that the order dated 19th February, 2003 clearly meant that the

issue of fair rent has to be decided. The fact remains that the fair rent has not been decided as yet. The same requires to be decided to give effect to

the order dated 19th February, 2003.

In order to consider this matter any further, the present incumbents holding the office that was held by the alleged contemnors/respondents no.1, 2 and

3 should be on record to ensure whether these three officials still constitute the FRAC of the Postal Department.

The applicants/petitioners are, therefor, directed to serve a copy of the amended contempt petition upon the added alleged contemnors/respondents as

also on Mr. Gayen so that Mr. Gayen, who is appearing for the alleged contemnors/respondents, can take instructions in the matter in the meantime.

Let this matter appear on 26th August, 2021.

The applicants/petitioners are directed to serve in the meantime and file an affidavit of service to this effect on the next date.