S K SAMSUDIN Vs. RAVIKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by his instant application for contempt has alleged that the Contemners-Opposite parties herein have willfully, deliberately and intentionally violated the Order dated 14th November, 1995 passed in C. O. NO. 9736 (W) of 1994, in the facts and circumstances and manner indicated therein. By the aforesaid order dated 14th November, 1995, passed by me in the aforesaid C. O. No. 9736(W) of 1994, the impugned order dated 18-7-94, being Annexure 'E' to the Writ application, was quashed, and the respondents therein, more particularly, the R. T. A., Howrah, were/was directed to consider the Writ Petitioner's prayer for Temporary Permit in respect of the route in question. Howrah Railway Station to Boga, and dispose of his application therefore in the light of and within the ambit and scope of the aforesaid orders dated 14-6-89 and 18-9-89, passed by the Transport Department, Govt. of West Bengal, after giving him (petitioner) reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter by recording a reasoned order, within two months from the date of communication of this order.

(2.) It appears from the said order that the Id. Advocate for the respondents therein undertook to communicate the Court's said order to them within one week from date. Despite the aforesaid under-taking given by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents in the said application, the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner therein by his letter date 23rd November, 1995, appears to have communicated the Court's aforesaid order, along with a Xerox copy of the certified copy of the said judgment and Order, to the opposite parties, duly received by their Office on 19-12-95, as appearing from the Annexure 'D' to the instant Contempt Application. The two Opposite parties - Contemners, by filing affidavit-in-Opposition, sought to contend that the candidature of the petitioner was considered by the Board, and the Regional Transport Audhority (hereinafter referred to as R. T. A.), Howrah, in its Meeting dated 24th January, 1996, in obedience to the Court's aforesaid order, and the petitioner's prayer for grant of temporary permit was rejected on the grounds recorded. The order of the R. T. A., Howrah, was communicated to the petitioner under a Memo dated 14th February, 1996, copy of which is annexed to their affidavit-in-Opposition, marked Annexur-e 'A' thereto. It is further contended therein that the R. T. A. has considered the petitioner's candidature in the light of and within the ambit and scope of the modified orders dated 14-6-89 and 18-9-89 issued by the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal. They had further stated in Paragraph-4 of their affidavits-in-opposition that they have the fullest regards and respect towards this Court and have not violated any of the orders of the Court in any manner whatsoever willfully and deliberately. They have also tendered unqualified apology before this Court for any of their acts which may seem to have been done contrary to the Orders passed by this Court.

(3.) The Order passed by the Court on 14-11-95, has already been indicated above. The orders dated 14-6-89 and 18-9-89 issued by the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, had been annexed in the Writ Application, as also annexed to the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the Contemners-Opposite parties. The said orders, such as they are, would at once indicate the ambit and scope thereof. It needs to be recalled in this Context that while passing the aforesaid relevant order dated 14-11-95, the Court had clearly held therein that the petitioner had, undeniably, been operating on the route in question on 15th September, 1988. He is clearly very much covered by the aforesaid modified Schemes under the aforesaid relevant Government order dated 14-6-89 and 18-9-89. There was, therefore, little justification for the R. T. A., Howrah, to refuse to grant permit to him for the route in question merely on the ground that a major portion of the Route falls within the alignment of the Route Calcutta/Howrah-Digha, which was a notified Route. The State Transport Authority could neither conceivably have directed the R.T.A., Howrah, to stop issuance of permit to the petitioner on that ground. Even so, the petitioner's prayer for temporary permit in respect of the Route in question had been rejected by the Authorities concerned on the grounds mentioned therein, as appearing from the aforesaid Annexure -'A', read with the aforesaid Government orders dated 14-6-89 and 18-9-89, in the background of the Court's aforesaid finding would once clearly indicate that the petitioner's prayer for temporary permit in respect of the Route in question was not considered strictly in terms of the specific direction, contained in the order dated 14-11-95. The Annexure -'A' to the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the Opposite Parties, as it is, would further indicate that the petitioner's prayer therefore was rejected on other considerations as well, in willful and deliberate defiance of the specific directions under the aforesaid relevant judgment and order dated 14-11-95, directing the Authorities concerned to consider the petitioner's prayer for temporary permit in the light of and within the ambit and scope of the aforesaid orders dated 14-6-89 and 18-9-89, issued by the Transport Department. Government of West Bengal, amounting to disobedience to the Court's aforesaid order. The contention of the Contemner-Opposite parties in paragraphs 6(2) and 6(e) of their A/O that the rejection of the petitioner's prayer for grant of temporary permit under the relevant order gives rise to a separate cause of action and cannot be challenged in the instant Contempt Application in any manner whatsoever further seems to be all the more contemptuous. Realising the difficulty some what tardily, the Ld. Advocate for the Contemner-Opposite parties had submitted during the hearing that they had considered and rejected the petitioner's prayer in compliance with the Court's aforesaid relevant order dated 14-11-95, the way they understood the same. But as I look to my aforesaid order dated 14-11-95, I find no vagueness or ambiguity therein. The said order, such as it is, appears to be as clear and specific, as could be; and does not require any prescience or perspicacity to understand the same. There could, therefore, be no scope for any confusion in respect thereof. Even so, if there was any confusion on the part of the Opposite parties in respect of the Court's said order, it was open to them to obtain clarification from the Court. It was certainly not for them to construe or interpret the Court's order, the way they liked, as they did by rejecting the prayer-for grant of petitioner's permit to him on the grounds stated, thus attempting to circumvent the Court's aforesaid order dated 14-11-95.