AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
Petitioners complain of violation of order dated November 15, 2018 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench.
The order dated November 15, 2018 of which violation is complained of affirmed order of the learned Single Judge dated October 3, 2018.
Records demonstrate that the petitioners before Court approached the learned Single Judge for implementation of the order dated October 3, 2018. Learned Single Judge in such contempt petition being CC/9/2019, by an order dated February 28, 2019 held that, since, the Division Bench interfered, the contempt petition would lie before the Division Bench. Consequently, leave was granted to the petitioners herein to withdraw the contempt petition and file afresh on the self-same cause of action before the Division Bench. Consequently petitioners filed the present contempt petition.
Issue is whether the contempt petition would lie before the Division Bench, when the Division Bench affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge or not.
This issue amongst others received consideration by the Special Bench in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1152 (Sailesh Kumar -Vs-Smitha R. IAS and Another).
In Sailesh Kumar (Supra), the Special Bench held in paragraph 22 as follows:
“22.... ... ... The contempt jurisdiction is not only exercised to punish the person having found guilty of wilful and deliberate violation of the order/direction of the Court but can further be exercised in due implementation and/or execution of the said order. It stands to reason that the statutory provision contained in the Rules is strictly applicable and therefore, the answer to the references is as follows:
(i)In case of an affirmation of an order of Single Bench passed in exercise of the original jurisdiction either in Original Side or the Appellate Side, the contempt would lie before the Single Bench alleging the violation of the directions of orders passed by him.
(ii)In case of reversal, modification and setting aside the order of the Single Bench in an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the Division Bench, the contempt application would lie before the Judges constituting a Division Bench who passed the order.
(iii)In the event, an undertaking is given by the party to the proceeding before the Single Judge to do or not to do a certain thing and challenge to an order could not yield in reversal and/or modification of the original order is recorded the contempt would lie to a Judge before whom such undertaking was given.”
Sailesh Kumar (Supra) was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench in 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 3984 (Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others -Vs- Binod Kumar, the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Others).
In Baisakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (Supra), the Co-ordinate Bench held that, since, the order of the Division Bench merged with the order passed on appeal by the Supreme Court, the contempt petition would lie before the Supreme Court.
A Special Leave Petition directed against Baisakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (Supra), was carried before the Supreme Court which was disposed of by the order dated March 25, 2026 passed in SLP (C) No. 18973/2025. By such order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted 2026 SCC OnLine SC 331 and (2000) 6 SCC 359 and held that, there was no error committed by the High Court in refusing to entertain the contempt petition in Baisakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (Supra).
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner initially sought to invite the Court to refer the ratio laid down in Sailesh Kumar (Supra) to an appropriate Bench. In support of such contention, he cited various authorities.
Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent relies upon (2023) 9 Supreme Court Cases 641 (Prasanta Kumar Sahoo and Others -Vs- Charulata Sahu and Others) and contends that, change in law during the pendency of the proceeding is required to be taken note of and that, the law obtaining as on the date of the decision should be applied.
We are not minded to take a different view than what is laid down in Sailesh Kumar (Supra). The same is binding on us. Ratio of Sailesh Kumar (supra) was applied in Baisakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra). Supreme Court did not find any error in the views expressed in Baisakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra).
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners may be granted liberty to approach the appropriate Court for implementation of the order dated October 3, 2018.
Prayer of the petitioners being reasonable is accepted. In the event, the petitioners approach the appropriate Court for implementation of the order dated October 3, 2018 within four weeks from date, such proceeding may be treated as within the period of limitation prescribed for implementation of such order.
CC/18/2019 and CC/12/2020 are disposed of accordingly.
I agree.