N BAKSI Vs. O K GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This proceeding in contempt arises out of Mis-cellaneous Judicial Case No. 40 of 1957. In that case the Player made was to enjoin Mr. O. K. Ghosh, I. A. and A. S., Accountant General, Bihar, to perform his statutory obligations by acceding to pay for the passage benefits, as provided in the Superior Civil Services Rules 1924, to the wife and the children of the petitioner Mr. N. Baksi, I. C. S., Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar. That miscellaneous judicial case on contest was disposed of by the order dated the 11th March, 1957. The concluding portion of that order reads as follows :

(2.) The grievance of Mr, Baksi is "that the refusal of the opposite party to give effect to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court is not bona fide and that the attitude adopted by him to frustrate the object of the application made by the petitioner and deprive the petitioner and his family of the opportunity to sail according to their scheduled programme amounts, in effect, to flouting the command addressed to the said opposite party in the said case". He has accordingly in the present petition prayed that a proceeding in contempt be taken against Mr. O. K. Ghosh to secure compliance of the aforesaid order. In Court this petition was filed on 30th March 1957, though it is claimed that its drafting had been completed by 19th March, 1957, so much so that the other side also was served with a copy of the same on that very , date. Thereafter on 21st March, 1957, as against the order passed in M. J.. C. No. 40 of 1857, an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was filed. That was on behalf of two persons Mr. O. K. Ghosh and the Union of India. It was numbered as Supreme Court Appeal No. 41 of 1957 and while it was still pending for disposal the petition for contempt came up for hearing on 26th March, 1957, when the Court on hearing the parties issued the rule nisi calling upon the Accountant General, Bihar, to show cause why a proceeding in contempt should not be drawn against him on the facts as alleged in the petition. In the meantime, it is said, the Accountant General has complied with the order and has already issued the necessary passage certificates as commanded toy this Court in the order dated the 11th March 1957. In that view of the matter, Mr. P. R. Das appearing for the petitioner has now pressed this application only for costs.

(3.) The learned Solicitor General appearing for Mr. O. K. Ghosh has shown cause and an affidavit in opposition has also been filed though it is in the form of an application in reply. That is sworn by the Accountant General himself. Therein facts have been stated in some detail to explain as to why the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court could not be filed earlier. And I think there is no reason for me to say that it was not so though I cannot help observing that with some more diligence that application for leave to appeal could have been filed a few days earlier or at least the present complications could have been avoided by drawing the attention of the Court in the meantime to the difficulties that stood in the way of an early application. Unfortunately that not having been done it now arises for consideration as to whether the way in which Mr. O. K. Ghosh has moved in the matter has laid him open in law to a charge of wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. In answer thereto the learned Solicitor General has strongly defended Mr. O. K. Ghosh and in support of his defence has raised four contentions, namely, (1) that the demands made by Mr. Baksi in his letter dated the 11th March 1957" were more comprehensive OP wider than those in the original writ petition or in the order made by the High Court"; (2) that the notice served upon tile respondent did not comply with the accepted rule inasmuch as it did not clearly and fully specify the matters in regard to which contempt was alleged to have been committed; (3) that no order or writ had yet been served on the respondent and so the question of disobedience to such an order OP writ could not at that point of time arise' and (4) that the letter sent in reply to the communication of Mr. Baksi 'did not mean and was not intended to mean a. refusal to comply with any direction of this Hon'ble Court" and whatever was written in the letter was under the bona fide belief that the respondent was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to take his decision as to whether in the circumstances of the case an appeal was advisable against that order,