Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sonali Talukder vs Dr. Soumitra Mohan on 26 March, 2019
Author: Moushumi Bhattacharya
Bench: Moushumi Bhattacharya
1 26.03.
g.b. 2019 W. P. C. R. C. 40 (W) of 2019
03 Ct. No.17 In
W. P. 5658 (W) of 2002
Sonali Talukder
Vs.
Dr. Soumitra Mohan
Mr. L. K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate
Mr. J. Acharya
Mr. A. Bose
.......For the Petitioner
Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. A. G.
Mr. Jaytosh Majumder, Ld. G. P.
Mr. Avishek Prasad
....For the Alleged Contemnor
Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay
Ms. Iti Dutta
.....For the State
Ms. Supriyo Dubey Chakraborty
.....For the SSC
The alleged contemnor is present in court today. The learned Advocate General representing the alleged contemnor, being the Commissioner of School Education, submits that contempt petition is not in accordance with the Rules framed under the Contempt of Courts Act (Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Act, 1975). The learned Advocate General emphasizes that under Rule 4 of the said Rules, every petition and affidavit must briefly state the nature of the contumacious conduct complained of and under Rules 6 and 7, every petition 2 shall contain full particulars of the materials upon which the petition is grounded and the prayer of the petition shall distinctly state the particular contumacious conduct alleged for which the Rule is prayed for. He further relies on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this court reported in (2009) 1 WBLR (Cal) 1011 (Shri Sheo Ram Vs. Shri Bhopinder Singh & Ors.) wherein the contempt application was held to be not maintainable and dismissed on the ground that no specific charge of contumacious conduct was mentioned in the prayer portion, in the cause title as well as in the pleadings save and except a general statement that the alleged contemnors have violated the court's order by not considering the case of the petitioner in compliance with an order passed by this court.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the conduct complained of has been stated with sufficient particulars in the body of the application as well as in the prayer portion. Counsel submits that the enquiry of a court in a proceeding of this nature would be to ascertain whether the contumacious act on the part of the alleged contemnor has been brought out with sufficient clarity in the petition. Counsel submits that if 3 there is any lacuna in the adherence to the form as prescribed under the 1975 Rules framed by this Court, leave may be given to correct the application and bring it within the proper form.
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the alleged contemnor, this court is of the view that the acts alleged in contempt of the order dated 14th July, 2010 have been stated in sufficient detail particularly in paragraphs 11, 12, 14 and 15 of the application. The aforesaid paragraphs have outlined with adequate clarity as to the conduct of the alleged contemnor in taking into consideration matters, which were not within the scope of the order dated 14th July, 2010. Prayer 'A' for issue of Rule has also been framed in a manner which makes the alleged contumacious conduct of the alleged contemnor clear by using the expression "...........by not restricting his scrutiny to the areas specifically mentioned in the said order,............" It is correct, however, that sufficient particulars of the alleged acts of contempt have not been stated in the cause title of the application as mandated under Rule 4 of the Rules which is set out below:
"In the matter of (state briefly the nature of 4 contumacious conduct complained of)".
It should also be mentioned that the decision relied upon by the learned Advocate General was on an application in which the contumacious conduct of the alleged contemnor was not mentioned either in the prayer portion or in the cause title or even in the pleadings. From a reading of the said decision it also appears that the learned Single Judge dismissed the application on the ground that no contumacious act or conduct has been detailed in the application. Such is not the case here. In this petition, as has been stated above, there is no ambiguity as to the alleged contumacious conduct complained of by the petitioner.
In view of the above, leave as prayed for is granted to the petitioner to correct the application in compliance with the relevant Rules.
Affidavit-in-opposition, as prayed for by learned Advocate General on behalf of the alleged contemnor, is granted. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within three weeks from date.
List this matter after four weeks. Reply, if any, to be filed within the returnable date.
Personal appearance of the alleged contemnor to be 5 dispensed with on the next date of hearing.
(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) 6 7 8 9 10