JATAI CHANDRA MONDAL Vs. SAKSHIGOPAL GHOSH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to directions granted, an affidavit has been filed by the alleged contemnors-respondents showing cause why a Rule ought not to be issued. From a reading of such affidavit, it appears that the alleged contemnors-respondent nos. 2 and 3 had constructed the building till the roof of the first floor. This has been disputed by counsel for the petitioner by placing photographs of the construction and from a look at the said photographs, it appears that even if the first floor's roof was constructed prior to the order dated 26th April, 2011, the construction thereon was completed after passing of the order. In the photographs, the frontage of the construction is restricted to the ground floor and the first floor. It is on two either sides of the frontage that extensions have been made beyond the first floor. These extensions, admittedly, could only have been made on the alleged contemnors-respondent nos. 2 and 3's own showing after the passing of the order. Therefore, the explanation given in the affidavit filed is not sufficient.

(2.) Accordingly, let a Rule be issued against the alleged contemnor respondent nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) The decisions reported in AIR 1974 Calcutta 3 and (2008) 7 SCALE 484, relied on by the counsel for the alleged contemnor-respondent nos. 2 and 3 will not apply in the instant case as from the photographs produced, a clear case of contumacious conduct is evident. There is no dispute with regard to such construction. Therefore, the decisions cited are not applicable to the facts of this case. The Pradhan, alleged contemnor-respondent no. 1, in spite of receipt of the order dated 26th April, 2011, took no step to consider the representation filed by the petitioner. Although a contempt application has been served on him, the direction by which he was directed to show-cause by filing affidavit has not been communicated to him. The gist of the order dated 11th November, 2011, wherein directions were given, was communicated to the alleged contemnor-respondent no. 1 by a letter dated 21st November, 2011. This cannot be accepted as a proper communication of the order to the alleged contemnor-respondent no. 1.