Mr. P. K. Biswas v. None
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In the result, the petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD _O_ R_ D_ E_ R_ 22/08/2022 Heard Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. [2] This petition has been filed under Section-12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article-215 of the Constitution of India for drawing a contempt proceeding for willful and deliberate violation/disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 05.01.2017 in connection with case No. WP(C) No.1087 of 2016 along with the order dated 09.07.2021 passed in case No. WP(C) No.854 of 2020 passed by this Court. [3] Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner since 7 years had been knocking the doors of the respondents for recording her name in respect of the land purchased by her on 17.07.1992 vide sale deed No.I-1811 in the Record of Rights maintained by the Revenue Department but, the respondents failed to take any action to the prayer of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.1087 of 2016 praying for certain reliefs and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court dated
05.01.2017 with some specific directions upon the respondents. Though order by this Court has been passed but, the respondents were reluctant to comply with the directions passed by this Court. [4] Subsequently, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.854 of 2020 and when the said writ petition was taken up for admission hearing, the learned Additional G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted a false and misleading statement that the order dated 05.01.2017 has been complied with and thus upon that submission the writ petition was disposed of. The respondent-contemnors had flouted the specific directions of this Court and by such act the respondent-contemnors had lowered the esteem and authority of this Court in the eye of general public by disobeying the aforesaid specific direction of this Court. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
According to the learned senior counsel this petition has been filed against the illegal action of the respondent-contemnor, that they have not complied with the order dated 05.01.2017 passed by this Court. The petitioner initially has filed a writ petition before this Court and their grievance was that the respondent-authorities have not demarcated the properties and also not providing the easement right of the pathway. The order dated 05.01.2017 passed by this Court directing the District Collector to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on this above mentioned issue and take decision within three months. In pursuance of the same, the concerned authority has passed an order dated 24.03.2017 and directed the concerned SDM to take necessary steps with regard to the demarcation and the boundary of the path way. Since, the said order was not been complied with, the petitioner has filed another writ petition being WPC No.
Operative part
854 of 2020 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 09.07.2020 on the submission given by the Government counsel before this Court that the order has already been complied with which was passed on 05.01.2017 and nothing survives in the said writ petition for further adjudication. Hence, the writ petition was disposed of. Having left with no other alternatives, the petitioner has preferred this contempt case seeking an order from this Court to penalize the respondent authority for not complying the order dated 05.01.2017 passed by this Court in its letter and spirit. It reveals from the records that insofar as the compliance of the order dated 05.01.2017, the DC vide order dated 24.03.2017 has complied this order. But, according to the learned senior counsel, the SDM has not complied with the order of the DC and expressed his grievance. In view of the above submission advanced by the learned senior counsel, this Court feels that it is always open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before this Court for the action of the SDM i.e. for non compliance of the order passed by the DC. Insofar as, the contempt petition is concerned, the order dated 05.01.2017 has already been complied with by the concerned authority by passing an order dated 24.03.2017. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a case to be decided under contempt proceeding and thus, rejected. [14] In the result, the petition stands disposed of. JUDGE A. Ghosh
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Constitution of India.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.