Akshya Kumar Grahacharya vs Sujata Patra

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Bhol, learned advocate appears on behalf of the applicant. He had moved the application on 27th February, 2023.

Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of alleged contemner and files compliance affidavit. In it stands disclosed order dated 16th February, 2023 made in disposing of the representation of applicant. He submits, direction in order dated 19th November, 2019 was for consideration and disposal of this representation. He tenders unqualified apology on behalf of his client, for delayed compliance.

Mr. Bhol submits, there has been contempt irrespective of belated order dated 16th February, 2023 having been made. It does not amount to compliance. Co-ordinate Benches in respectively disposing of the writ petition and first contempt application had in clear terms directed disposal of the representation in favour of his client.

Two paragraphs from order dated 19th November, 2019 disposing of applicant’s writ petition are reproduced below.

“Regard being had to the facts and submissions and without going into the merit of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Tahasildar, Tirtol-Opposite Party No.5 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-5 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order by passing a reasoned order.

It is made clear that while disposing of the representation vide Annexure-5, Opposite Party No.5 shall take into consideration the contents of Annexurer-2.”

(emphasis supplied)

A paragraph from order dated 8th September, 2020 made disposing of first contempt application is reproduced below.

“This Court finds no purpose will be served in issuing notice in such a matter except giving a further direction. Considering the considerable loss of time in implementing the direction of this Court, this Court directs the opposite party to work out the direction involving disposed of writ petition within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order by the petitioner. It is made clear that in the event there is no legal impediment and this direction is not worked out, it will be construed to be deliberate violation of the Court’s order.”

(emphasis supplied)

On perusal of above extracted paragraphs, Court is not to take cognizance of contempt on basis thereof. It is because by order dated 19th November, 2019 it was made clear that while disposing of the representation, the authority was to take into consideration contents of annecure-2 in the writ petition. Furthermore, the other co-ordinate Bench while disposing of earlier contempt application by order dated 8th September, 2020 though had said there is no legal impediment and the direction if not worked out would therefore be construed to be deliberate violation of Court’s order, cannot be interpreted as a direction to return order in favour of petitioner. They were directions for expeditious action to be taken on the representation.

Having said above, it is open to applicant to challenge said order dated 16th February, 2023, disposing of his representation on merit. But that cannot be in contempt jurisdiction.

The apology and compliance are accepted. The proceeding is dropped.

The application is disposed of.

……………………………