Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ch vs Am State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 March, 2022
Ct.
25.03 C.P.A.N. 111 of 2022
No.
In
40 2022
1
W.P.A. 20837 of 2021
In Mahfuza Khatun & Ors
Ch -Versus-
am State of West Bengal & Ors
ber Mr. Kanai Lal Mondal
Mr. Rajat Kumar Dhar ...For the Applicants/Petitioner
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag
...For the Alleged Contemnor/respondent no. 6
In compliance with the order dated 18th
February, 2022 the respondent no. 6, the Block
Development Officer, Magrahat-I, South 24-Parganas has
filed the affidavit-in-opposition. The applicants file
affidavit-in-reply. Let the affidavits be kept on record.
The applicants have filed the instant
application for contempt of Court on the allegations that
the respondent no. 6, the Block Development Officer,
Magrahat-I, South 24-Parganas has willfully violated the
order dated December 30, 2021 passed by this Court in
W.P.A 20837 of 2021. Hence, they pray for issue of
contempt rule upon Fatema Kausar, Block Development
Officer, Magrahat-I and penalizing her for flouting the
Court's order willfully.
Upon hearing learned counsels appearing for
the parties this Court vide Order dated 30.12.2021 passed
in W.P.A No. 20837 of 2021 made the following direction:
"The respondent no. 6 is directed to dispose
of the requisitions by a reasoned order within 15
days from the date. If the respondent no. 6 finds that
by efflux of time, the validity of the requisition has
come to an end, the respondent no. 6 is directed to
give opportunity to the petitioners to make
requisition afresh.
Learned Lawyer appearing for the petitioners is at
liberty to communicate this order to the concerned
authority. The respondent no. 6 is also at liberty to
give opportunity to the respondent no. 8 of being
heard in this regard."
The respondent no. 6 in her affidavit-in-
opposition states that the learned advocate for the
petitioners served a server copy of the order dated
30.12.2021 upon her vide letter dated 4th January, 2022
which she received on the same day. Thereafter, the
certified copy of the order was served upon her on 11th
January, 2022. But, soon after receiving the copy of the
order, the respondent no. 6 was deployed at Kashinagar
Point in connection with the Holy Gangasagar Mela, 2022
to perform her assigned duties on and from 8th January,
2022 till the completion of Gangasagar Mela, 2022. From
3rd January, 2022 the entire area of Hariharpur Gram
Panchayat was declared a Micro Containment Area in
connection with the rising COVID-19 cases in the area
vide Memo dated 3rd January, 2022 issued by the District
Magistrate, South 24 Parganas. Despite the aforesaid
impediments, the respondent no. 6 was dedicated and
committed to comply with the direction as enshrined in
the Order dated 30.12.2021. On 14th January, 2022 this
respondent received a letter dated 13th January, 2022
from twelve members of Hariharpur Gram Panchayat who
were the original signatories of the requisition for the
motion of no-confidence dated 13.01.2022 against the
Pradhan. By the letter dated 13.01.2022 they withdrew
their requisition dated 30.11.2021. However, to verify
whether they withdrew the requisition or not, the
respondent no. 6 served a notice dated 24.01.2022 upon
the aforesaid twelve members of the Gram Panchayat
asking them to appear before her on 3rd February, 2022 at
12:00 Noon with EPIC Card/ Aadhar Card for hearing to
be held as to their withdrawal of requisition for
no-confidence motion. But, none of them turned up before
her.
Learned Lawyer appearing for the respondent
no. 6 submits that as the said twelve members of the
Gram Panchayat withdrew the requisition of no-
confidence, the requisition now does not subsist and
accordingly the respondent no. 6 was or is not in a
position to take necessary steps for compliance with the
Court's Order.
Perusal of a letter dated 14th January, 2022
signed by the aforesaid twelve persons shows that those
members withdrew the requisition for no-confidence
motion for the interest of the villagers and for the
development of the Gram Panchayat. In the letter they
stated that they also did not intend to proceed with the
writ petition being W.P.A No. 20837 of 2021.
A cursory look at the requisition of no-
confidence annexed to the writ application and the letter
withdrawing the requisition annexed to the affidavit-in-
opposition shows that the signatories of the requisition
and the signatories of the letter of withdrawal of the
requisition are the identical persons.
Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant
submits that the letter withdrawing the requisition is a
manufactured document.
It appears that the copy of the affidavit-in-
opposition was served upon the applicants in the first
week of March. But, no step has been taken by the
petitioners for launching any prosecution pertaining to
the allegations of manufacturing the aforesaid letter.
In the decision in the case of U.N. Bora, Ex.
Chief Executive Officer and Others-Vs-Assam Roller
Flour Mills Association and Another reported in (2022)
1 SCC 101 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while
dealing with the contempt petition Court is not expected
to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very
judgment which was allegedly violated. This principle has
to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of
facts are involved and they were raised earlier but
consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to
decide original proceedings.
This Court cannot disbelieve the affidavit
affirmed by a high government Official like the respondent
no. 6 herein.
As the facts in the pleadings and the
documents on record demonstrate, the applicants have
withdrawn the requisition of no-confidence motion. Their
letter dated 14.01.2022 reveals that for the interest of the
villagers and for the development of Gram Panchayat they
do not proceed with the no-confidence motion as well as
the writ petition.
While there is no requisition in support of no-
confidence and the applicants do not intend to proceed
with no-confidence motion, I feel that the respondent no.
6 now does not owe any obligation to carry out the Court's
direction as above. The acts performed on the part of the
respondent no. 6 do not indicate that the respondent no.
6 violated the Court's Order.
In view of the above, I think that the contempt
application is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the contempt application is
dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy of the order, if applied for,
be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite
formalities.
( Rabindranath Samanta, J.)
