LexTAPAN KUMAR MUKHERJEE versus HEROMONI MONDAL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• TAPAN KUMAR MUKHERJEE v. HEROMQNI MONDAL AND ANR. NOVEM13ER 14, 1990 [S. RANGANATHAN AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.J Contempt of courts J!cl=SecliOflS 3 @4 /~Court's orders~ Camplltmi:e af utmost ViNllimce 10 /Je exercised _/Jy offlcers of Governm~111. A Tbt 11ppt1l!lml, 1!11 olf!lll'r of Ille Stiile G11v~mme11t, while !!l'til!I! 11s C Junlof L!!!ld. Rdorms O~r~llm·Bl!ll!ll Develupment Officer, WI!$ enJolnetl to l!l!Jtlpl)' with t!le Onler d.11tl!d JS.6. J987 pas@cl by the C11leutta Hll!h Court, restr11ii!ln11 lbe ~sp1mde11t.!itiiw t'rom h1terfer• -11111 with lllt pos8"Slon of tbe wr!t•p!'lltlm"rs !!! ~Jl!!ct llf file dlsp11tec! hmd!I l!nd from ~11Ulv11tl!!11 l!le s111!1 !omls, Tbe apJl!!llllllt was !l11ly opprlsfll with tb!l sold urd.er 1md. 11s 11 rf.'S11!t l!lereof Bl!ll!k Level co. p Ordl1111tlon Commltull milt l!l!!l p11ssed 11 ref!Cll11ll1111 on Jf), 7. J9117 tbat "tbo om~r·l!!.cb111ie or tbv K11lt11ll P11ll~e litlltll!n SbP!!!ll l!!ll!l nllf!!S· 11ry 11etkm 11emrdl!!f! to the ordor of Ille ff1111 • .Jiii!!! CpµJ't, Tbe •PPl'l· l!mt wa• 11 p11ny IP t!le s11id. r'Sj)lul!!m, Pespite tl!11t 011 3,8,l987, be Issued 11 memo lo the O!nl:llr•l!!-el!!!rge «1f tile Kultu!I Police Station ln&lm11tln11 lb11& the p!l•l!lb111der~ 111enll!med !ti 01e memq were e11titled l«I E ~111t1v1kt Ill' l1111ds In dil;pgtv 11nd th!it th' pPllce llelp l«I the pa!tah'!l~rs be !llvon d11rlnll tile fUltlVlltlon P!'rloo. Tull! mem11 was lllrectlY 1md c:leiirl)' In vlol!ll!Qn Qf tbe ll!j1111e1J911 !!rde• pMSe!l by tile ff!1!11 Co!Jrt. On a contempt P!'llti«1n flied ll@for~ 01~ ffll!h Court. lbe appella!lt w11s fqund guilty qf !!tllltempl !If c!lllrt 81!4 tbe lllg!t Co!!rt rejecting the apolllll)' ktm!ered b)' h!m, Imposed 11 fine of R~. J,OQO, Jhll!!g !1J!l!!ieve4 F the 11ppel!anl !nQVe<I a fl!ltitiop Jli!fore tills c11urt, which was orlgi!Jall)' '"'glst~red !!S Petltl«1n fur Sfl!l!:i!•I le!IVe al!d W!!S dismls.sec! hy .tbil; Court on J~.10.89, Tbere!lfttlr, 11n bel1111 pPl!!ted 1111! Illa! the P!'*ifl•m sl\oµld b11n bttn t!l!llted 11s l!I! l!PP!'I!! Pl'llil!m 11m!~r S!'!'ll•m J 9 11f lhe CAA, tempi Qf Cm1rts /\el, the C.il!rt rccalled It ~r!i!lr·1m!er da!llll ~3.J!l,89 1111d d.lrected t1111I SLP "" re,nl!m!>llre!l 11s a Crimim1I APJ>!la! BQd lbat ll! o now lbe Instant l!Pl"'l!l ll!!l! ~«1me up f!lr l!earl11g, Tb" appellllllt l:ll!!knded !h11I !be mem11 !fated 3,Jl,87 lla!J bee11 iqdvtmntly slg11ed. by bl!ll "" I! w11s one of !be Sf!nr11! mem!ls wl!.icb lie had t11 Issue in c111111~tl!I!! wl!I! v11rl1111• d!~pl!!~ reg1mJ111g ~111tlv.~!im1 rlglll!I durin!! ti!~ ~ul!lva!!!ln Sl111son. O!! tit~ 11tll~r ll!!!ld th~ ff.'Spo11!1e111§ Ii A B c 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. contended that they had been litigating against the State siime 1963 as the State had granted pattas in respect of the disputed lands to others disregarding their right to the land and the appellant had be1en acting contrary to the interests of the respondents in the said litigation. Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: Having decided, as a member of the B.L.C.C., to give police protection to the respondents, the appellant was not likely to have taken action deliberately to go contrary to the decision of the Commit- tee and flout the order of the Court. The possibility that there was some mistake or inadvertence due to pressure of work cannot be totally ruled out. [59F] Officers of Government should exercise utmost vigilance in comp- liance of courts' orders, particularly where they deal with vital issues such as cultivation rights of land-holders. [60E] D In the present case, the appellant himself withdrew his letter dated 3.8.87 and police protection was provided to the respondents. But such lapses, even during a short interval, can sometimes cause irrepar- able damage and injury. [60F] Where a case of wilful disobedience is made out, the cou.rts will E not hesitate and will convict the delinquent officer and no lenience In the court's attitude should be expected from the court as a mailer of course merely on the ground that an order of conviction would damage the service career of the concerned officer. [ 60F -G] . · CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt Crimi- F nal Appeal No. 21of1990. From the Judgment and Order dated 1.7.1988 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No. 529 of 1988 in Appeal from Original Order Tender No. 3597 of 1986. G G. Ramaswamy, S. Murlidar and Rathin Das fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.