Gurupada Khatua And Others vs Onkar Singh Mina And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3704 Cal

  1&2
12.07.2021
  TN

                               CPAN 347 of 2020
                                     In
                                WPA 74 of 2020
                             IA No: CAN 1 of 2020
                         (Old No: CAN 3450 of 2020)
                                CAN 2 of 2021

                         Gurupada Khatua and others
                                   Vs.
                         Onkar Singh Mina and others

                            (Via video conference)



                   Mr. Yamin Ali,
                   Mr. Nirmalendu Bera
                   Mr. Gora Chand Samanta

                                 .... for the petitioners/applicants


                   Mr. Anirban Ray,
                   Mr. Sk. Md. Galib,
                   Ms. Subhra Nag,

                                        .... for the State-respondents

It appears upon hearing learned counsel for

the parties that contempt, prima facie, does not lie

in view of the respondents/alleged contemnors

having taken sufficient steps in terms of the

direction of this court.

The relevant question, as raised in the

recalling application made by the alleged

contemnors, is whether the order, contempt of

which has been alleged, was valid or void ab initio,

in view of the relevant scheme, that is, the

'Gitanjali' housing scheme, having already ceased

to exist and funds were no longer allocated for such

scheme. Learned counsel appearing for the

applicant in the contempt application refers to an

unreported judgment, dated March 2, 2015 passed

by a learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.C.R.C

340(W) of 2013 along with W.P. No.18415(W) of

2011 [Adhir Ranjan Kar vs. Atanu Kumar Mondal

and another] and contends that if the initial order

was passed in presence of both the sides, there is

no scope of recall of such order since it was the

onus of the parties to point out the then current

position.

Learned Government Pleader along with

learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

authorities contend, by placing reliance on the

judgment of Manjit vs. Union of India, reported at

AIR 2021 SC 944, that the court ought not to grant

a direction without looking into the factual

scenario, since granting largesse with public funds,

not available in law, can have the effect of depriving

other needy people as well.

Learned Government Pleader also places

reliance on Budhia Swain and others vs. Gopinath

Deb and others, reported at (1999) 4 SCC 396, in

support of his contentions.

It is further submitted that, at the time when

the order was passed, the learned advocate

appearing for the Respondents did not get the time

to take proper instructions in the matter. Hence,

the prior cessation of the Gitanjali scheme at that

juncture could not be pointed out to this court.

In reply, the applicants in the contempt

application/the writ petitioners argue that, in view

of the sorry plight of the petitioners due to the

disastrous 'Aila', which affected several people who

got relief from the State, some direction ought to be

passed on the respondent-authorities to look into

the matter and provide alternative schemes to the

petitioners.

      The      clear   stand     taken    by   the    learned

Government       Pleader,      as   corroborated     by   the

annexures to the recall application, is that the

respondents explored the option of accommodating

the petitioners in alternative housing schemes, but

the procedure of allocation regarding the other

existing schemes had already been completed and

extending such scheme to the present petitioners

would be doing injustice to the various other

victims of Aila whose similar prayers had already

been rejected previously.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties

and going through the cited judgments, this court

reserves judgment in the matter.

Hearing in respect of both the contempt and

recall applications is concluded.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)