PROVAS ROUTH ALIAS BHULAN ROUTH Vs. SANTANU GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application for contempt for violation of the order dated 7th December, 2000 passed by this Court in A.S.T. No. 4301 of 2000 (W.P. 22397), a preliminary point was taken on behalf of the alleged contemnor No.1. that the contempt petition is not maintainable in view of infraction of rule 7 of the contempt Rule framed by this Court. Mr. P.K. Roy on behalf of the alleged contemnor No.1 had relied on the decision in the case of Dr. Luis Proto Borbosa v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1812 (para-89); Calcutta Corporation Teachers Association v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation 1993 (2) Cal HN 444 (para-4); Indian Airport Employees Union v. Ranjan Chatterjee (1999) 1 JT (SC) 213 : (1999 Cri L.J. 1332) (para-7, 11) in support of his contention. He also relied on rule 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the Contempt Rules. Pointing out from the pleading made out in the application he had submitted that it does not comply with the provisions of rule 7 of the Contempt Rules and the other rules as elaborated by him in course of his argument. However such elaboration would be dealt with at a later stage.

(2.) Mr. Sibdas Banerjee on behalf of the petitioner on the other hand contends that the technicality cannot stand in the way when it appears to the court that there was a violation of the order of this Court. The preliminary duty of the petitioner is only to bring to the notice of the Court the alleged violation. The contempt is a matter between the Court and the alleged contemnor. According to him the decision cited by Mr. Roy are distinguishable. In as much as the earlier order passed in the earlier writ petition on 29/09/2000 in W.P. No. 18054 (W) of 2000 was also known to the alleged contemnor No. 1 and that the order dated 7/12/2000 was virtually a follow-up of the said order of which the alleged contemnor no. 1 was well aware. According to him the object of rule 4 and 7 is only to give opportunity to the alleged contemnor. But after having committed contempt one is not entitled to avoid the implication relying on the technicalities. He has also relied on Pritam pal v. High Court of M.P., AIR 1992 SC 904 : (1992 Cri LJ 1269); B.M. Bhattacharjee v. Russel Estate Corporation, AIR 1993 SC 1632 : (1993 Cri.L. J. 2251) and Bank of India v. Vijay Transport, (2000) 8 SCC 512 : (2001 Cri LJ 732) in support of his contention.

(3.) Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, ld. Counsel for Sri Ashim Bhattacharya, who sought to intervene and was so permitted by this Court and added as a party in the contempt proceedings, submitted that his client is not responsible for any impropriety. Therefore, he cannot be affected by any order passed in these proceedings. Since no allegation has been made as against his client, no order which might visit Sri Ashim Bhattacharya with any unfavorable consequences can be passed. Court can punish the guilty, but not a third party. In such case the Court has a choice either to compensate the affected person or for a direction for seeking relief through a suit for specific performance. In the present case the subject matter not being an immovable property is capable of being compensated by money. He relied on the decision in the case of Attorney General v. Newspaper Publishing Company 1997 (3) All ER 159 at page 168 in support of his contention.