T J MAHANTA Vs. K N MEDAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contemner is present in person, with Mr. A.S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel who has been beard. Mr. N.C. Das appears as Amicus Curiae. There is yet another connected Civil Original (Contempt) Case No. 137/93, filed by the Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram State Electric Supply Workers Union and Others. These contempt petitions have been pending for almost 3 (three) years by now, and the contemner in the meanwhile had also approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) No. 2231 and 2232 of 1994. The Supreme Court on 23.2.96 passed the following order :-

(2.) Few basic facts leading to registration of these contempt petitions need be noted. The Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram State Electric Supply Workers Union and Others (for short 'the Union') had filed a writ petition registered as Civil Rule No. 2187/93 against (i) the Assam State Electricity Board, (ii) Estate Officer of the Board, (iii) Executive Engineer of Guwahati Electrical Division (Central) of the Board and (iv) the collector, Kamrup District Guwahati, challenging an order dated 28.6.93 filed as Annexure-6 to the petition passed by the Estate Officer, in purported exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5 of the Assam Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. When the petition came up for motion hearing on 12.8.93, before the learned Single Judge of this Court while issuing notice of Motion, effect and operation of the impugned order, Annexure-6 was stayed. While passing the above order, the learned Single Judge, has also noted it as a fact as informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of information given to the Board authorities, they still persisted in demolishing the building. It was on the basis of statement made by the petitioner's counsel that the learned Single Judge further passed the following order :-

(3.) As noted above, in pursuance to the aforesaid order, Mr. T.J. Mahanta and Mr. R.C. Borpatra Gohain, Advocates went to serve the stay order as passed and directed by the Court on the Estate Officer of the Board, who is the present contemner. What happened to Mr. Mahanta and Mr. Borpatra Gohain, when they went to the Board's office to serve its Estate Officer (the contemner) with the stay order, was brought to notice of the learned Single Judge. Not only that, Mr. Mahanta, who in compliance of the Court's Order, had gone to serve the stay order on the State Officer was assaulted, but the order itself was flung with a jibe and taunt and trampled by the contemner, under his shoes. Ripples created by assault on an Advocate reacted the local Bar, and it was but natural that they also felt agitated over the incident.