Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Selvaraj Balaji vs Rathendra Raman on 6 March, 2026
2026:CHC-AS:372
AD -2
Ct No.16
06.03.2026
(SSS)
CPAN 1442 of 2025
in
WPA 8704 of 2024
With
CAN 1 of 2024
With
CAN 2 of 2025
Selvaraj Balaji
Vs.
Rathendra Raman, Chairperson, Board of Major Port Authority,
Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata and Ors.
Mr. Satrajit Sinha Roy,
Ms. Samira Grewal
.....For the petitioner.
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Ld. Snr. Adv.,
Mr. Dheeraj Trivedi,
Mr. Swarajit Dey,
Mr. Saptarshi Kar
...For the alleged contemnors.
1. Affidavit-in-reply filed today be kept on
record.
2. The present application has been filed alleging
criminal contempt against the alleged contemnors.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to
argue that in the order of this Court dated April
18, 2024 passed in WPA 8704 of 2024, it was
recorded that learned counsel appearing for the
respondent authorities had submitted that all
compliances in terms of the GFR were done by the said authorities by publishing the tender in 2 2026:CHC-AS:372 question on the Central Public Procurement Portal (CPPP). It was further argued, by seeking to interpret Rules 159 to 161 of the GFR, that GeM is a concept which is resorted to for enlisted bidders and once the tender process is on way. It was argued that the advertisement is mandated to be made on the CPPP, which had been complied with in the present case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on a purported information received from the concerned officer of the NIC under the Right to Information Act, annexed at Page 46 of the contempt application, insinuates that it is evident therefrom that learned counsel for the respondents had misrepresented the facts before this Court.
5. As per the said information, the tender mentioned in the RTI had not been floated using the NIC e-Procurement system. It was further mentioned in the information that it appears to have been floated in https://kopt.enivida.in .
6. Learned counsel further submits that a document relied on in the report which directed to be filed by the respondents merely shows that the link to the tender document in question was reflected in the CPP portal, whereas the main 3 2026:CHC-AS:372 tender document had been uploaded in the web portal https://kopt.enivida.in .
7. It is further submitted that in terms of the General Guidelines for e-Procurement under the Central Public Procurement Portal, issued by the concerned Ministry of the Government of India, NIC facilitates ministries/departments/others in complying with the above Guidelines through application modules available under Central Public Procurement viz. e-publishing (eprocure.gov.in/epublish/app), e-Procurement (eprocure.gov.in/eprocure/app) and XML data transfer.
8. It is further submitted that in terms of Clause A (II) of the said Guidelines, to carry out e- Procurement using NIC's e-Procurement module, the authorized users of the User Organization are required to obtain valid DSCs (Digital Signature Certificates).
9. It is pointed out that no digital signature, however, appears on the printout of the CPP portal annexed at Page 53 of the present writ petition, which is a part of the report filed by the respondent authorities. Thus, it is argued that the respondents had practised a fraud upon this Court by misrepresenting that due compliance of the GFR guidelines were done while uploading the 4 2026:CHC-AS:372 advertisement in the CPPP, which is contrary to the records.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. reported at AIR 1994 SC 853 where it was held, inter alia, that the facts of the said case left no manner of doubt that one of the parties thereto obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud, it was held, is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another; it is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage.
11. Under such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed further that a litigant who approaches the court is bound to produce all documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation and if he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to hold that it did not agree with the High Court in the said case, that there was no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence. The 5 2026:CHC-AS:372 principle of "finality of litigation", it was observed, cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and one who comes to the court, it was held, must come with clean hands. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that more often than not, process of the court is being abused and property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan- dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain their illegal gains indefinitely.
12. It was noted in the said judgment that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
13. By relying on the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in view of the respondent herein being guilty of misleading the court by practising fraud, appropriate punishment may be meted out for criminal contempt as envisaged in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
14. Learned senior counsel appearing for the alleged contemnors submits at the outset that 6 2026:CHC-AS:372 even from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, it is found that to ascertain the genuineness of the document produced by the respondent no. 1, an expert by the name of S.S. Digital Services was consulted by the petitioner, which is a firm apparently specializing in Central Government Tendering Services in portals of Central Public Procurement Portal and GeM. It has been stated that the said firm, in its reply dated May 2, 2024 to the petitioner's enquiry letter dated May 1, 2024, stated that it is obviously visible that no such tender was uploaded by the Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata on the Government of India CPP portal on the subject on the dates as stated.
15. Learned senior counsel submits that in terms of the said averment, the knowledge of the alleged act of contempt came to the notice of the petitioner at least on May 2, 2024. However, the present contempt application has been filed much thereafter, in the month of August, 2025. Thus, the contempt application is time-barred.
16. Addressing on merits, learned senior counsel submits that no act of contempt or deception has been done by the alleged contemnor in any manner whatsoever.
7
2026:CHC-AS:372
17. Learned counsel for the respondents, it is pointed out, submitted before the Court on April 18, 2024, merely that all compliances in terms of the GFR were done by the said authorities by publishing the tender on the Central Public Procurement Portal.
18. It is pointed out that from the documents annexed at page 53 of the contempt application itself, which is also a part of the report filed by the respondent authorities, it will be evident that on September 4, 2023 itself, the publication of the tender found place in the CPPP portal.
19. Thus, it is argued that there was full compliance of the GFR guidelines, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the respondent authorities before the Court.
20. Hence, there is no question of any contumacious act on the part of the alleged contemnors.
21. On a more serious note, learned senior counsel points out to the averments made in paragraph nos. 12 and 14 of the petitioner's affidavit-in-reply, where allegations of an extremely serious nature have been levelled against the learned Senior Advocate who argued the matter on behalf of the respondent authorities before the Court on the relevant date. 8
2026:CHC-AS:372
22. It is pointed out that the petitioner has even gone to the extent of questioning the decision of the Full Court of this Court in designating the said learned Advocate with a senior gown.
23. Learned senior counsel submits that such allegations ought not only to be deprecated but to be expunged from the records.
24. Learned senior counsel beseeches the Court to take serious note of such allegations while dealing with the present application.
25. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he personally apologises for the said averments and also submits that he does not press those allegations as referred to by the learned Senior Advocate appearing at this juncture for the alleged contemnors.
26. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the bar of limitation cannot strictly apply in the present case since allegations in the nature of practising fraud upon the Court has been made and it is well- settled that fraud vitiates all. Thus, exercising the wide powers vested in the High Courts under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the contempt application ought to be entertained. Accordingly, the objection as to limitation is turned down.
9
2026:CHC-AS:372
27. However, this Court does not find any iota of ingredient to establish criminal contempt as contemplated in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
28. The said provision is set out hereinbelow:
"2.(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-- (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."
29. The allegation made against the alleged contemnor is that a misrepresentation was made by the alleged contemnors to this Court by submitting that the GFR norms were complied with and that the advertisement for the tender-in- question was made on the Central Public Procurement Portal (CPPP).
30. This Court finds from the documents annexed at page 53 of the contempt application, which is also a part of the report filed by the respondents pursuant to the direction of this Court, that the contention of the respondents is prima facie 10 2026:CHC-AS:372 correct inasmuch as the CPP portal reflects the link to the tender document-in-question, which further refers to the website https://kopt.enivida.in . The e-publication date has been mentioned on the said webpage as September 4, 2023.
31. The petitioner relies on a purported written information issued by the appropriate official of the NIC with regard to the tender mentioned in the RTI not being floated using NIC e-Procurement system but in https://kopt.enivida.in.
32. However, the self-same information indicates that the key information, called meta data, has been mirrored in the CPPP portal.
33. The submission made before this Court to the effect that the advertisement was "made on the CPPP" is wide enough to encompass the mirroring of the advertisement on the CPPP portal.
34. The subtle technical difference between 'mirroring' and 'uploading' is insignificant and not germane to consider whether a misrepresentation was made before this Court by the respondent authorities.
35. By the expression "made on the Central Public Procurement Portal (CPPP)", obviously learned counsel then appearing for the respondent authority referred to the advertisement in respect 11 2026:CHC-AS:372 of the link of the tender document which was reflected in the CPPP portal on the relevant date itself, that is, on September 4, 2023.
36. Although the petitioner seeks to take the Court into a detailed enquiry, both on fact and on law, as to the effect of the GFR guidelines and the other relevant guidelines of the concerned Ministry of the Central Government with regard to publication of advertisements on the CPP portal, the same can only be the subject matter of consideration at the final hearing of the writ petition itself and not a contempt application.
37. Even from the documents annexed at page 15 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the alleged contemnors, it is found that the eNivida system is fully integrated with CPP and GeM portal as per Government guidelines, thereby lending credence to the submission made before the Court by the respondents that the advertisement was made on the CPPP. The thin line of distinction sought to be drawn between the eNivida portal and the CPP portal gets obliterated by the aforesaid comment under the head "Advantages and Objective of eNivida" which is found from the eNivida brochure published by RailTel.
38. Even otherwise, in order to qualify as a criminal contempt, contumacious conduct of a 12 2026:CHC-AS:372 much higher standard has to be established by the petitioner.
39. Unless there is an act which is of such a level that it scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lower the dignity or authority of the Court or directly prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding or interferes with the administration of justice in any manner, it cannot be said that any act of criminal contempt has been committed.
40. For a criminal contempt to be committed, the Court has to be sure beyond reasonable doubt as to such act coming within the ambit of contumacious act. The standard of proof, akin to a criminal matter, is "beyond reasonable doubt" in a contempt proceeding.
41. It is well-known that contempt is the last resort to which the courts lean on when there is no other alternative for the court in order to establish and maintain the dignity of the court. In the present case, the very nature of the allegations made in the contempt application is frivolous and flimsy and pertains to the merits of the writ petition itself. All arguments made on merits by the petitioner can very well be made at the time of the final adjudication of the writ petition. It is not within the contemplation of 13 2026:CHC-AS:372 contempt jurisdiction to adjudicate on merits the main matter, in connection with which certain submissions have been made by counsel.
42. Insofar as the serious allegations made in paragraph nos. 12 and 14 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner is concerned, this Court not only takes serious exception to the said statements but is of the opinion that the said allegations themselves border on contempt.
43. Not only has the petitioner, in a mischievous fashion, sought to call into question the integrity of the learned advocate who appeared for the respondent at the relevant juncture, in a clear bid to browbeat the respondent into acceding to the prayers of the writ petitioner/petitioner, the petitioner in the contempt application has the audacity to call into question the decision taken by the Full Court of this High Court insofar as the designation of the said counsel is concerned.
44. The said allegations exhibit extremely poor taste and are seriously deprecated by this Court.
45. Although learned counsel for the petitioner, after being called out by the submissions of learned senior counsel for the alleged contemnor, seeks to pay lip-service by tendering his so-called "unqualified" apology on his behalf as well as on behalf of his client, this Court is at a loss as to 14 2026:CHC-AS:372 how such appalling allegations could go through the scrutiny which is expected of any learned advocate.
46. The Court expects its Bar, comprised of officers of Court, to be much more cautious and to act as a screen between unscrupulous litigants and the Court.
47. However, in the present case, with utmost distaste, this Court must observe that learned counsel appearing for the petitioner failed in his duty in not settling the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner properly before letting it to be filed before the Court.
48. Such practice is strongly deprecated. The scurrilous and baseless allegations made against learned counsel who represented the alleged contemnors in the writ petition at the relevant juncture, in paragraph nos. 12 and 14 of the affidavit-in-reply filed in Court by the petitioner, are hereby expunged in their entirety.
49. Even in the event any certified copy of the said affidavit-in-reply is applied for, the concerned Department of the Court shall not grant such certified copy, since the allegations made in the affidavit-in-reply, in paragraph nos. 12 and 14 thereof, are hereby expunged.
15
2026:CHC-AS:372
50. Insofar as the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same has no bearing whatsoever on the contempt application. Apart from the said matter having not arisen out of a contempt proceeding, the answer to the contempt application lies in the said judgment itself.
51. As in the said case, it is open to the petitioner in the present contempt application, who is also the writ petitioner, to argue all points regarding the legal and factual effects of the report filed by the respondent-authorities pursuant to the direction of this Court and the implication of the same at the time of adjudication of the writ petition and to seek appropriate orders in that regard.
52. However, the said allegations fall entirely outside the purview of a contempt application and, in any event are unsubstantiated by cogent material.
53. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the present application for contempt has been made with the mala fide and harassive intention not only to malign the alleged contemnors and their learned Advocate, but also to browbeat them into submission.
16
2026:CHC-AS:372
54. Moreover, the nature of the allegations made in the contempt application and the affidavit-in- reply filed by the petitioner in connection therewith are a clear attempt to denigrate the very process of dispensation of justice.
55. Accordingly, CPAN 1442 of 2025 is dismissed on contest with costs of Rs.1,00,000/-, to be paid by the petitioner within a fortnight from date to the Calcutta High Legal Services Authority.
56. It is made clear that none of the above observations shall prejudice the rights and contentions of either of the parties in the writ petition.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)