Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
353/2013 on 2 July, 2015
Author: Patherya
Bench: Patherya
02.07.2015 W.P.NO. 22616 (W) of 2012
With
CPAN 353 OF 2013
Mr. Tanmoy chakraborty
For the applicant-petitioner
Mr. C.R. Panda
For the alleged contemnor
An order was passed on 17.10.2012 whereby the Station Manager,
who is the alleged contemnor respondent in this contempt application, was
directed to effect supply to the petitioner's submersible within the time specified therein from the date of compliance of all formalities. Police assistance was also given in case of obstruction. The alleged contemnor respondent thereafter sought to effect supply to the petitioner's submersible but for two reasons was not able to do - (1) there was physical obstruction caused by the villagers and (2) a letter issued by the M.L.A. Subsequently, an alternative route was suggested and information of this alternative route was also given to the petitioner by the letter dated 1st April, 2013 by the alleged contemnor respondent No.1. The said alternative route did not go over the temple but went beside it. There was no objection also by the local villagers and this was also made known to the petitioner. The no objection by the villagers was enclosed to the said letter but the petitioner refused to accept the same and did not agree to take connection through the alternative route, reason whereof is unknown. Police assistance was also sought by the alleged contemnor respondent No. 1 and deposit has also been made by the petitioner but it is only to prevent any anarchy or a law and order situation that the alternative route has been identified. Therefore, no contempt can be alleged of the order dated 17th October, 2012 and in the event, the petitioner is desirous of taking connection through the alternative route, let the said be intimated to the alleged contemnor respondent by the petitioner.
It cannot be said that no step has been taken or no offer made by the alleged contemnor respondent to grant connection to the petitioner. It is only to prevent any law and order situation that may arise in case the line is drawn over the Mandir that the alternative route has been identified. Therefore, step has been taken by the alleged contemnor respondent to effect supply and it is only because of the obstinate stand taken by the petitioner that supply could not be effected.
Accordingly, there is no violation of the order dated 17th October, 2012 and this application, accordingly, fails.
Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as early as possible.
(Patherya, J)