9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Alipur there was contempt of Court. There is a further allegation in the said application that there had been an interference with the course of justice by intimidating the two Special Officers and causing even assaults on them, which really amounted to criminal contempt. 2. The learned Single Judge curiously enough does not come to any specific finding as to whether or not a case for contempt has really been made out by the petitioner and against the contemners. Ignoring the contention of the contemnor respondents before him that any further direction was unnecessary towards the implementation of the Court's initial judgment dated 21.7.89 and overruling the contention that it was inexpedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction as a model of executing the previous order, the learned Single Judge was of the view that he could justifiably give appropriate further directions in the matter of holding the election since his earlier judgment dated 21.7.89 got the seal of approval of the apex Court of the country and the said learned Single Judge had jurisdiction to reverse or alter or even modify the earlier ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to assume office with the leave of the Additional District Judge and in case any one had any objection to the election, he was given the right of representation before the learned Additional District Judge and liberty was further given to the learned Additional District Judge to allow the elected representatives to assume office pending the hearing of the said representation of the objector. The election was to take place by secret ballot and the time limit fixed for completion of the election was fixed as 14th August, 1991. 3. It seems obvious that very many changes were incorporated by the learned Single Judge subsequent to his earlier judgment and order dated 21.7.89. 4. It has been argued by the appellants that it was not within the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to have passed the impugned judgment and order in the manner he did and the learned Single Judge could not effect changes from the earlier order by passing further order and directions. It would not, however, be out of place to remember the sequence of events which led to the present appeal. On 21.7.89 the learned Single Judge gave directions for appointment of two Special Officers to conduct the elec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and fair election the Joint Special Officers did not take any step in this regard to ameliorate the grievance of the appellants. 271 members who were excluded from the purported voters1 list moved a Writ application but were not successful to obtain an interim order. On 26.8.89 the appellant No. 1 Ashish Chakraborty who claimed himself to be President of the Trade Union, filed two applications before the Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipur praying for removal of the Joint Special Officers or alternatively for a direction upon them to act in a judicious manner after considering all aspects necessary for conducting a free and fair election including preparation of the final voters' list and for fixing a fresh programme for the election. In the said application details of irregularities in the voters' list and the primary voters' list were given out. The learned Additional District Judge passed orders on 26.8.89 and 28.9.89 on the said application. Being aggrieved by the specific orders as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, the appellant No. 1 preferred an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. Another learned Single Judge during the vac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application will not prevent the implementation of his judgment dated 21.7.89 and the contempt petitioners would be at liberty to pray before the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipur adequate directions for implementation of the said order and for fixing a date and place of election and for delineating the procedure and modalities to be followed for conducting the said election. The appellants as well as the respondent No. 8 contested the said contempt application and filed affidavits-in-opposition denying all allegations regarding their culpability and further reiterated that they did not violate and disobey the order of this Court in any manner whatsoever, far less wilfully or deliberately. There was no case of any obstruction to the due administration of justice which might land them into the arena of contempt. They had high regards for the Court's orders and with great humility they did bow down to the orders of Court to carry them out. The Company Officers and the Management also denied their complicity and contended further that they did not put any objection or hindrance to the implementation of order dated 21.7.89 in any manner whatsoever. The Police Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed to discharge Mr. Dilip Kumar Sett and Mr. Tapan Kumar Dutt, two learned Advocates of this Court who expressed their unwillingness to continue any more and directed the Additional District Judge to appoint another two Special Officers to conduct the election as expeditiously as possible and by any means before the Puja Vacation and further directed that the order passed on 18.1.90 would hold good excepting such modifications that were necessary on account of the lapse of time and that copies of all the orders passed by him were directed to be sent to the Court below for a consideration in accordance with law. Mr. H. K. Gajra and Mr. P. K. Roy, two retired Judicial Officers of West Bengal Higher Judicial Service were appointed as Special Officers. Due to nonavailability of Garden Reach Municipality the election could not be held. It seems obvious that the learned Single Judge who ultimately heard out the matter did not direct his mind at all as to the merits of the fresh contempt application but arguments were only made on the question as to whether the said learned Single Judge retained to himself the jurisdiction to pass necessary and effective orders without deciding as to whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in a jurisdiction so exercised in futility. The parties were very much bound to follow the subsequent orders in a jurisdiction to which they have voluntary submitted to and obtained orders from and they could not wriggle out of the same. 8. Mr. Naranarayan Gooptu, the learned Advocate-General, who appeared on behalf of the appellants drew our attention to various changes that the learned Single Judge made from his earlier order and they were as follows : (i) The Assistant District Judge is to act as the Returning Officer ; (ii) The Special Officers might take other persons to help them in. counting of the votes ; (iii) The counting was to take place immediately at the end of the polling time and (iv) The Assistant District Judge was to declare the results forthwith after the counting is over; (v) The newly elected Executive Committee of the organisation was to assume office with the leave of the Additional District Judge ; (vi) If anybody has any objection to the election, he would be entitled to make his representations before the Additional District Judge who will consider the same and pass necessary orders and if he thinks proper he should allow elected representat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er order except punishment would have been appealable, there would have ' been no necessity of using the words any order or decision'1 in the expression the execution of the punishment or order appeal against as used in Section 19(2)(a) of the Act. If the scope of appeal Under Section 19 is restricted only to punishment imposed Under Section 12 and nothing beyond, then a person who is ex facie found guilty of contempt Under Section 14 and is detained in custody pending the hearing on the charge of contempt and is refused bail, would have no right of appeal against such refusal of bail pending the decision on the charge of contempt which will amount to deprive the alleged contemner of the right of appeal in such circumstances. If in case of such an exigency, where he is directed to be released on a particular bond which is found to be much excessive, his right is to be defeated to a large extent and the very purpose of making provision for appeal to give relief in appropriate cases will be lost. We are of the clear view that while the contemner is detained in custody Under Section 14 pending determination of the charge, there is no punishment imposed on him as yet Under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which some point is decided or a finding is made in exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court to punish for contempt, an appeal lay Under Section 19. However, in the facts of the said case the Supreme Court held that the impugned order did not fall under such a category which would be appealable since it was an interlocutory order pertaining purely to the procedure, wherein it was made clear that the question of the maintainability of the proceeding would be decided later on. This decision also like the earlier one did not propound any broad proposition of law that except punishment, no other order or decision is appealable Under Section 19 but on the other hand it broadens the proposition that only such orders or decisions in which some point is decided or a finding is given in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt, an appeal could be preferred. In the latter case, however, the impugned order was an order passed subsequent to the initiation of the contempt proceeding, but in which no point was decided and no finding was given which could be found to be appealable. In Purshatam Das v. B. B. Dhillon reported in 1978CriLJ772 , it was held that on a mere initiation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le prerogative of Criminal Division Bench and the order is clearly of no force of applicability. Assuming for the sake of argument that he was exercising his jurisdiction for civil contempt, which jurisdiction he could lawfully exercise sitting singly and against the violation of his own order, we must hold in the facts and circumstances of the present case relying on our decision in Ranjugopal Mukherjee v. Ramapada Mahalder and Ors. reported in CAL. LT. 1991 (2) HC 366 that the Court's enquiry, was to be directed to the limited question as to whether its order has been wilfully disobeyed or not. While exercising its powers under the Contempt of Courts' Act in a proceeding for civil contempt, it is not therefore open to the Court to pass an order, which will materially add to or alter the order for the alleged disobedience of which its contempt jurisdiction was invoked. When judged in the con text of this principle, there is no escape from the conclusion that the learned Single Judge went beyond his jurisdiction in passing the order under appeal. 13. In the view we ultimately take of the present case since both the sides have agreed that election should be held as expedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
