Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Sukdeb Maity And Others vs Mr. N. R. Sekar Raju And Others on 29 September, 2023
D/L. 10.
September 29, 2023.
MNS.
CPAN 770 of 2023
in
WPA No. 18294 of 2005
Sri Sukdeb Maity and others
Vs.
Mr. N. R. Sekar Raju and others
Mr. Ramdulal Manna,
Mr. Manju Manna (Dey),
Mr. Sayan Mukherjee,
Ms. Payel Khardia
... for the petitioners.
Ms. Chandreyi Alam,
Ms. Runu Mukherjee
...for the alleged contemnor no. 2.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee,
Mr. Pinaki Dhole,
Mr. Somnath Naskar
...for the alleged contemnor no.3.
1.
Affidavit-of-service filed in court today
be kept on record.
2. Learned counsel for the alleged
contemnors submit that two sets of the
alleged contemnors, representing the
State and the Union, have preferred
separate appeals the order under
contempt along with applications for
condonation of delay in filing such
appeals.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
alleged contemnor no. 2 submits that
due to overhauling in the department,
the applications for condonation of
delay could not be moved before the
appropriate Division Bench.
4. Accordingly, an adjournment is sought
by both the sets of alleged contemnors
for the applications for condonation of
delay in preferring the appeals to be
moved.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
contends that as per the recording in
the order dated August 18, 2023
passed in connection with the
contempt application, the alleged
contemnor no. 3 submitted that the
State could not pay the costs due to
certain unavoidable circumstances
and sought two weeks' time for paying
such costs. It is argued that the same
tantamounts to an undertaking which
could not be resiled from at this stage.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
places reliance a judgment of the
Supreme Court passed in Dr. H.
Phunindre Singh and others Vs.
K.K.Sethi and another reported at
(1998) 8 SCC 640.
7. In the said judgment, the Supreme
Court observed, inter alia, that in the
facts of the case, particularly when the
order passed by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court was not
stayed by the Division Bench, the
contempt petition should have been
disposed of on merits instead of
adjourning the same till disposal of the
appeal, so that question of deliberate
violation of the subsisting order of the
Court is considered and enforceability
of the Court's order is not permitted to
be diluted. In the facts of the said
case, the Supreme Court held that the
contempt petition should be disposed
of within a period of three months from
the date of communication of its order.
8. However, in the present case, the
facts are different from the case cited
by learned counsel for the petitioners.
Apart from the fact that no ratio as
such has been laid down by the
Supreme Court as it was observed
that the order was passed in the facts
of the case, I further find that in the
said case, the Division Bench had
refused to stay the order of the
learned Single Judge despite which
the learned Single Judge had
adjourned the contempt application till
the hearing of the appeal.
9. In the present case, however, there
has been no occasion for refusal of
interim order by Division Bench.
However, the alleged contemnors
cannot take indefinite time to move
their applications for condonation of
delay.
10. For the time being, since certain
grounds have been made out at least
by some of the contemnors for the
delay in moving the application for
condonation of delay in connection
with the appeal, I am inclined to grant
adjournment to the alleged
contemnors.
11. Thus, as a last chance to the alleged
contemnors, the matter is adjourned
till October 13, 2023.
12. It is made clear that in the event the
alleged contemnors fail to move their
applications for condonation of delay
before the Division Bench in the
meantime, the contempt application
will be taken up irrespective of the
pendency of such application.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
