SABITA RANI MAJILYA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) The contempt application has been filed seeking appropriate Rule against the alleged contemnors. However, on perusal of the contempt application it appears that in the cause title there is no assertion of contumacious act and conduct against the alleged contemnors by specifying their individual and separate acts as contumacious. In the contempt application there are three contemnors. In the pleading also there is no averments specifying the particular contumacious act and conduct of the respective alleged contemnors. In the prayer portion also there is no identification of the alleged contumacious act and conduct identifying the respective work field of the alleged contemnors and their violation of the order. Under the Contempt Rules framed by the Calcutta High Court it is mandatory that contumacious act and conduct of the alleged contemnors should be identified specifically in the cause title, in the pleading as well as in the prayer portion. Reason to frame such Rule is that as in a contempt proceeding the status of the alleged contemnors after service of the Rule become alike to an accused in a criminal proceeding, contumacious act and conduct should be specifically identified following the principle of natural justice. On interpretation of said Contempt Rule framed by the High Court, one of us, Pratap Kumar Ray, J. sitting singly, has already delivered a judgment in the case of Sri Sheo Ram v. Bhopinder Singh,2009 1 WBLR 1011.

(3.) Contempt Rules frame by the Calcutta High Court reads such: