AMAR SADHUKHAN Vs. MRINAL KANTI CHAKRABORTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a chequered background in deed. An application for contempt has been filed in Court on June 22, 1987, supported by an affidavit sworn by one Amar Sandhukhan. By order dated July 24, 1987, the application for contempt was entertained and upon consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the learned lawyer for the Petitioner and the Advocate for State there was a direction that the matter will come up for order on Friday next. On July 1, 1987, having heard the learned lawyers for the Petitioners, for the Municipality and for the State while the Chairman of the Baruipur Municipality and the Officer -in -Charge of Baruipur P.S. were present in Court and in view of the materials on record, Officer -in -Charge of Baruipur P.S. was directed to make an investigation and to submit a report within five days as to whether there is any obstructing wall for free egress and ingress to Baruipur Kancharibari Market and as to whether the walls have been raised after the order of this Court dated -February 26, 1987. Mr. Datta, learned Advocate appearing for the Baruipur Municipality, submitted that no walls have been raised under the order of the Chairman of the said Municipality. There was further direction that the matter will appear on August 6, 1989. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Officer -in -Charge of Baruipur P.S. has filed a report and an opportunity has been given to the learned lawyers appearing for the respective parties to take the copies of the report for taking effective steps. The parties sought leave of the Court to file affidavits and opportunities were granted accordingly. Subsequently, an application for substitution was filed and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the matter was heard on merit. It appears from the application for contempt that the Petitioners, viz. Amar Sadhukhan and 22 others for self and on behalf of the tenants/shopkeepers/traders at different sheds in the newly extended Baruipur Kanchari Bazar have alleged inter alia that they filed two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on February 11, 1987 and February 13, 1987, and after hearing the learned Advocates of the respective parties, this Court passed an ad interim orders of status quo on February 13, 1987, as regards the possession of the Petitioners at the market in question. It is a specific case of the Petitioners by filing the application for Contempt of Court that the Respondent/contemnors have deliberately violated the final order of this Court passed on March 26, 1987. It appears from the order dated February 26, 1987, that the Court observed that the question of recovery of possession against any person in unlawful occupation has got to be made in a manner as provided in law? It was made clear that taking advantage of the order dated February 17, 1987, as well as dated February 23, 1987, no new person and/or stranger should enter into the property and the Police will as a remain silent observer. It was made clear also that besides the Petitioners of the first and second petition as filed in a representative capacity, the actual traders at the site, will carry on their respective business until they are evicted in due process of law. For running of their respective businesses, the' ingress and egress of the customers should not be restrained in any circuitous process to interfere with the running of the business. There is specific allegation that subsequently the said order was challenged in appeal and ultimately the appeal was not pursued and the order dated February 26, 1987, is still in force. There is further specific allegation that the order dated February 26, 1987, has been deliberately violated by raising walls and the egress and ingress of the traders and the customers have been obstructed. From the Police report, it transpires that since the Police force was engaged in pre -/and post -election law and order problem, they could not take any effective steps while the walls were raised preventing ingress and egress to the Petitioners as, traders and other customers. It is specifically stated that the walls have been raised after February 26, 1987.

(2.) The facts of the case are not disputed by the contemnors. There is no denial of the fact that the order dated February 26, 1987, passed by this Court remains in force and the Petitioners and the traders of the market in question cannot be evicted by show of force only. It is admitted by all that law does not permit anybody to raise the walls to violate the orders of the Court on February 26, 1987, in a circuitous process.

(3.) Various objections have, however, been taken as to the maintainability of the petitions for contempt and seriously the bar of limitation has been raised.