Tripura High Court
Sri Sajal Deb vs Smt. Soumya Gupta And Others on 9 November, 2021
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
Cont. Cas(C) No.66 of 2021
Cont. Cas(C) No.68 of 2021
(A) Cont. Cas(C) No.66 of 2021
Sri Sajal Deb
......... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smt. Soumya Gupta and others
...... Respondent(s)
(B) Cont. Cas(C) No.68 of 2021
Sri Manoj Kumar Debbarma
......... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smt. Chandni Chandran
...... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mrs. Riya Chakraborty, Advocate,
Mr. Krishnendu Debnath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S Dey, Advocate General,
Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.,
Ms. N.C. Saha, Advocate,
Ms. A. Chakraborty, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
09/11/2021
(Indrajit Mahanty, CJ)
Heard learned Advocate General as well as learned counsel
appearing for the contempt petitioners.
These contempt petitions have been initiated on the basis
that the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C)
No.329 of 2015 and WP(C) No.212 of 2016 dated 23 rd February, 2021
had not been complied with. Inter alia essentially the complaint was that
the directions of this Court have been issued directing the State to comply
with the directions issued therein within a period of six months and the
State and /or its officers not have been active within the period as directed
necessitated filing of the present contempt petitions. The reply has been
filed by the contemnors appending thereto a scheme framed by the State
of Tripura dated 30th September, 2021. In essence it is submitted by the
learned Advocate General that by framing of the scheme though belatedly
the State has complied with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court and
he asserts that the discussions in the Cabinet had taken place on two
separate occasions which caused a slight delay in compliance with the
directions of this Court. Accordingly, he prays that the delay made by the
State in framing the scheme may be condoned and the contempt petitions
be dismissed.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
contempt petitioners-original writ petitioners contend that the scheme
framed by the State is not in consonance with the directions issued by the
Division Bench of this Court and suffers from various other legal
infirmities.
We are of the considered view that since the State has
framed the scheme dated 30th September, 2021 which has been appended
as annexure-1 to the response filed before the Court, we condone the
delay in making of the scheme and are of the considered view that the
State having framed the scheme nothing further needs to be done in the
present contempt petitions.
However, while dismissing the present contempt petitions
we grant liberty to the contempt petitioners, if they are so advised to
challenge the scheme framed by the State of Tripura dated 30th
September, 2021 on any ground that they may feel appropriate and the
dismissal of the present contempt petitions shall not amount to an
affirmation of the scheme framed by the State in the said regard. We are
compelled to record this finding in order to enable any person who may
be aggrieved by the scheme to challenge the said scheme and not to
prejudge the scheme or give approval of the scheme in any manner.
However, we conclude by stating that we find no ground for initiating
any contempt petition in the present nature. The judgment referred
hereinabove by the Division Bench was passed in rem.
With the observations as noted hereinabove, both the
contempt petitions stand dismissed. If any individual has any grievance,
they are free to raise such grievances.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Dipesh
