DHRUBADEO TEWARI Vs. THAKOLAL GANGULY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule was issued upon the two opposite parties viz. , Thakolal ganguly, Secretary, Council of Shebaits and Provat Kumar Mukherjee, Secretary Kalighat Temple Committee to show cause as to why they should not be dealt with for contempt of this court for having violated the order of injunction passed (by this court) on the 25th o October, 1968 in Civil Rule No. 7348 (W) of 1968.

(2.) THE facts leading on to the Rule may be put in a short compass. The present two petitioners Dhrubadeo tewari and Bhagaban Panda as well as one Kanai Lal Chakraborty describing themselves as Sathi Brahmins by professiona class of pujar is who accompany the pilgrims inside the temple at kalighat and offer pujas to the deity on their behalffiled an application in the constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and obtained a Rule Nisi on the 25th October, 1968, calling upon the four respondents including the kalighat Temple Committee and the council of Shebaits to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing them and/or their agents or servants not to take any action in pursuance of the impugned notices and/or in any way to give effect to the same and further Hot to demand and/or realise any amount by way of entrance fees from the petitioners and to withdraw, rescind and cancel the impugned notices referred to in prayer (a) of the petition and incorporated in annexure 'a' collectively. An interim order of injunction in terms of prayer (d) was also passed on title same date by this court restraining the respondents and their agents and servants from giving any effect to the impugned notices and/or to take any action in pursuance of the impugned notices and/or in any way to give effect to the same and further not to demand and/or realise any amount by way of entrance fees from the petitioners. The order of injunction, according to the petitioners, was communicated on the same day viz. , the 25th October, 1968 to the present two contemners by the petitioners' Advocate Mr. Samir Kumar mukherjee, Irispite of the same, hawever, the opposite-party No. 2 to the present Rule for contempt, Provat kumar Mukherjee, Secretary, Kalighat temple Committee, issued a notice dated the 30th November, 1968 purporting to implement the impugned notices with effect from Tuesday, the 11th chaitra, 1375 B. S. A copy of the said notice was annexed to the petition and marked with the letter 'a' for identification. Besides the same, on and from the 25th March, 1969 the above-mentioned two opposite-parties purporting to act as the Secretaries of their respective committees, started demanding fees from the petitioners and tried to compel them to submit introduction Forms and pay Gate-fees in compliance with the impugned notices mentioned before. On the 31st March, 1969 similar demands were made and on a refusal by the petitioners to comply with the same and a reference by them to the existence of the ad interim order of injunction passed by this court, the two opposite-parties are stated to have expressed that they are under no obligation to comply with the High Court's direction and prevented the petitioners from entering into the temple precincts with the help of their durwans. The said durwan dragged the petitioners into the office of the Kalighat Temple Committee, where they were forced to sign two blank papers. The petitioners, soon after the incident lodged two General diaries being G. D. Nos. 4548 and 4549 at the Bhowanipore Police Station regarding the aforesaid incident. The petitioners further averred that the opposite parties had in fact admitted their knowledge about the existence of the above-mentioned interim order of injunction in the two applications affirmed on Affidavits, filed by them in this court on 3. 2. 69, for acting and/or varying or modifying the interim order of injunction passed by this court. The petitioners accordingly filed tther present application in the special jurisdiction of this court on the 1st April, 1969 for drawing up proceedings for contempt because the opposite-parties are guilty, in the facts and circumstances referred to above, of a contumacious conduct by wilfully and deliberately violating the interim order of injunction issued by this court, Affidavits-in-opposition affirmed on the 17th and the 16th April, 1969 respectively were filed by the two opposite-parties in connection with the said application. The present Rule was issued on the 28th april, 1969. Two Affidavits-in-opposition affirmed on the 28th May, 1969, on behalf of the two contemners as well as an Affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the petitioner affirmed on the 5th June, 1969 were duly filed thereafter.

(3.) MR. Samir Kumar Mukherjee, advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has made a two-fold submission. He contended in the first place that the opposite-party No. 2, viz. , the Secretary of the Kalighat Temple committee has acted in contumacious disregard of the order of injunction passed by this court by issuing a notice dated the 30th November, 1968, purporting to implement the impugned notices with effect from the llth Chaitra, 1375 B. S. The second contention of mr. Mukherjee is that both the opposite-parties, purporting to act as Secretaries of their respective committees have wilfully and deliberately violated the said interim order of injunction issued on the 25th October, 1968, by starting demand of fees from the petitioners and trying to compel them to submit introduction Forms and pay Gate-fees in compliance with the impugned notices and also by making similar demands on the 31st March, 1969, when the petitioners refused to do so and referred to the pending interim order of injunction passed by this court. The opposite parties thereupon stated that they were under no obligation to comply with the order of injunction and with the help of their durwans prevented the petitioners from entering into the temple precincts and dragging the petitioners with the help of the durwans into the office of the Kalighat Temple Committee where they were forced to sign two blank papers. Two G. D. Entries being g. D. Nos. 4548 and 4549 were accordingly filed at the Bhowanipur Police station regarding the aforesaid occurrence soon after the incident. Mr. Tarak Nath Roy, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the contemner No. 1, thakolal Ganguly, Secretary, Council of shebaits filed an Affidavit-in-opposition categorically denying the allegation made by the petitioners as wholly unfounded and made in order to obtain the present Rule for contempt and for delaying the hearing of the Civil Rule nisi No. 1207 (W) of 1969 so that the sathi Brahmins may carry on their trade in an uninterrupted manner without observing any discipline in the temple. Mr. Roy finally submitted that his client is a law-abiding citizen and there has not only been no violation of the interim order of injunction on his part wilful or otherwise, but it had never been or is his intention to act in a contumacious disregard of any order passed by this court. ;