Sigma Rail Systems Private ... vs Sanjiv Bhutani & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 7299 Cal

18.10.2023
Item No.01
 RP
Ct. No.36
                               CPAN 773 of 2023
                     Sigma Rail Systems Private Limited. & Anr.
                                      Vs.
                              Sanjiv Bhutani & Ors.
                                      in
                             WPA 1050 of 2023

               Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv.
               Mr. Soorjya Ganguli
               Mr. Somdutta Bhattacharya
               Mr. Dhruva Chandra
               Ms. Devanshi Prasad
                      .....for the Applicants

               Mr. Pramit Kumar Ray, Sr. Adv.
               Ms. Sarda Sha
                         .....for the contemnors/respondent no.5

1. The genesis of the contempt proceeding arises out of

the judgment delivered by this Court on 17th May,

2023 in a writ petition filed by the petitioners.

2. The judgment disposed of the writ petition by

directing the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 to

commence inspection within seven days from the

date of the judgment in accordance with the

Specifications framed by the RDSO and ATP

applying the identical procedure for

testing/inspecting and with the same frequency as

was being done on 69 prior occasions before the

impugned documents in the writ petition were

issued by the respondents. The petitioners'

equipment was also to be inspected by the

RDSO/respondent no.3 within seven days from the

date of the judgment.

3. The alleged contemnors were the respondents before

the Court in WPA 1050 of 2023.

4. The Court thereafter proceeded to pass two other

orders on 9th June, 2023 and 16th June, 2023

recording that the RDSO had failed to hand over the

complete certification despite inspections having

been done on 29th May, 2023 and 4th June, 2023.

The alleged contemnors were directed to hand over

the final certification report to the petitioners by 8

P.M. on 9th June, 2023. On 16th June, 2023 the

Court imposed costs on the alleged contemnors for

not complying with the direction passed by this

Court and for active steps for delaying the matter.

The Court also rejected the objections taken by the

alleged contemnors for explaining the non-

compliance. Both the orders dated 9th June, 2023

and 16th June, 2023 were passed in contempt

proceeding arising out of the judgment dated 17th

May, 2023.

5. The alleged contemnors challenged the judgment by

way of filing an appeal and the Division Bench

passed several orders in the appeal including on 4th

October, 2023 recording its unhappiness with the

conduct of the RDSO/Lucknow in the matter of

inspection of the petitioners' equipment.

RDSO/Lucknow was directed by the earlier Division

Bench order to carry out inspection of the

petitioners' equipment. The Division Bench passed

another order on 11th October, 2023 recording that

alleged contemnors were making "feeble attempts" to

re-argue the contentions raised by the appellants

(alleged contemnors before this Court) and rejected

the arguments on that basis.

6. The last order of the Division Bench dated 17th

October, 2023 records unhappiness of the Division

Bench with the conduct of the appellants/alleged

contemnors whereby the Division Bench was

pleased to vacate the stay of the contempt

proceedings, which was granted on 21st June, 2023

and noted that the respondents (petitioners before

this Court) were entitled to mention the matter

before the first Court i.e. this Court.

7. The order placed before this Court shows that the

alleged contemnors have resorted to one excuse or

another on some flimsy pretext for not carrying out

the direction passed by this Court in the judgment

dated 17th May, 2023. The alleged contemnors have

also indulged in dilatory tactics in the matter of

compliance which has been recorded by the orders

of the Division Bench. The parties have been sent

back to this Court after vacating the order of stay of

the contempt proceedings. Hence, the entire

conspectus of the contempt proceeding is at large.

8. The contentions of the learned advocate appearing

for the alleged contemnors is simply an attempt to

push the culpability on the RDSO/Lucknow or the

officers of the Railways, who are now retired. The

submissions made do not present a defense to non-

compliance. The objection that the Division Bench

has modified the judgment dated 17th May, 2023 is

also not evident from the orders of the Division

Bench placed before this Court. On the contrary, it

appears that the Division Bench has recorded its

displeasure with the conduct of the

appellants/alleged contemnors.

9. The non-compliance issue has been continuing from

18th May, 2023. The alleged contemnors have taken

no steps to comply with the directions and have also

been unsuccessful before the Division Bench.

10. This Court, hence, considers this to be a fit case

for issuance of a rule against the alleged contemnors

for their repeated, blatant, reckless disobedience

and willful violation of the judgment dated 17th May,

2023.

11. Let a Rule accordingly be issued against the

alleged contemnors and be made returnable on 8th

December, 2023.

(MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.)