SALIL KUMAR MAITI Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR KALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE rule for contempt arises out of an application for contempt [C.P.A.N. No.1155 of 2008] filed by the petitioner. It was alleged therein that the fifth respondent had wilfully and deliberately violated the order passed by me on December 3, 2007 while disposing of the writ petition of the petitioner [W.P. No. 8655(W) of 2006], whereby the fifth respondent was directed to "implement the order passed by him on 6.5.05 in accordance with law as early as possible but positively within four weeks from date of communication" of the order.

(2.) UPON consideration of C.P.A.N. No.1155 of 2008, I had granted liberty to the alleged contemnor -respondent (hereafter the respondent) to file counter affidavit. Having failed to file it, rule was issued on July 26, 2011. By an affidavit dated November 21, 2011, the respondent raised defence. During the pendency of the rule, the respondent applied for recalling/modification of the order dated December 3, 2007 (C.A.N. 2207 of 2012) together with an application for condonation of delay (C.A.N. 2206 of 2012) on March 7, 2012.

(3.) W .P. No. 8655(W) of 2006 was presented before this Court by the petitioner on April 7, 2006. It was alleged therein that the private respondents had raised and were also raising unauthorised construction on property belonging to a particular trust of which the petitioner is the secretary; that several complaints were lodged by the petitioner before the respondent, who was the prodhan of the local gram panchayat for taking steps to demolish the unauthorised construction but the same did not yield any result; that ultimately the secretary of the local gram panchayat by his letter dated May 6, 2005 informed one of the private respondents of the fact of raising of pucca construction on trust property by him without obtaining permission of the local gram panchayat and that he was required to stop further unauthorised construction and to demolish whatever construction had been raised unauthorisedly; that the respondent too by his letter dated May 9, 2005 complained to the local officer -in -charge against the private respondents on similar lines requesting appropriate action; and that despite issuance of the aforesaid letter and complaint dated May 6, 2005 and May 9, 2005 respectively, no action was taken by the panchayat as well as the officer -in - charge. Prayer was, accordingly, made for direction on the official respondents to pull down the unauthorised construction.