Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(Cal) 438

SANJIB BANERJEE. J.
Sachin Halder – Appellant
Vs.
Md. Shaid – Respondent
W. P. C. R. C. No. 134(W) of 2009 with W.P. No. 8208(W) of 2009
Decided on : 23-6-2009

Advocates appeared:
Dipankar Bose, for Petitioner; Debasish Saha, for Respondents.

The court has jurisdiction to proceed with contempt proceedings even when an appeal and a stay application are pending in respect of the order alleged to have been disobeyed. However, the court should exercise restraint in exercising its jurisdiction in such cases.

Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - ELECTION - REQUISITION OF PRIVATE VEHICLE - NON-COMPLIANCE OF COURT ORDER - APPEAL AND STAY APPLICATION PENDING - JURISDICTION OF COURT TO PROCEED WITH CONTEMPT - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION - RESPONDENT HELD GUILTY OF CONTEMPT.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's vehicle was requisitioned by the authorities for the purpose of the last general election. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the requisition, and the court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to release the vehicle forthwith. The respondents did not comply with the order, and the petitioner filed a contempt petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the respondent had wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of the court. The court noted that the respondent had not made any serious attempt to obtain a stay of the order, and that the filing of the appeal and the stay application was only a charade orchestrated by a disobedient functionary.
Issues: 1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to proceed with contempt proceedings when an appeal and a stay application are pending in respect of the order alleged to have been disobeyed? 2. Whether the respondent had wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of the court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it has jurisdiction to proceed with contempt proceedings even when an appeal and a stay application are pending in respect of the order alleged to have been disobeyed. However, the court should exercise restraint in exercising its jurisdiction in such cases. 2. The court held that the respondent had wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of the court. The court noted that the respondent had not made any serious attempt to obtain a stay of the order, and that the filing of the appeal and the stay application was only a charade orchestrated by a disobedient functionary.
Final Decision: The court held the respondent guilty of contempt and directed him to be present in court on the next date of hearing for an appropriate order to be passed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with corresponding references:

Case Details: The case is Sachin Halder vs. Md. Shaid, decided on June 23, 2009, regarding W.P. C.R.C. No. 134(W) of 2009 with W.P. No. 8208(W) of 2009. [judgement_subject][2009 Supreme(Cal) 438]
Subject Matter: The case concerns Contempt of Court, specifically the disobedience of a court order regarding the requisition of a private vehicle for election purposes. [judgement_subject]
Legal Basis: The proceedings are governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, specifically Sections 12 and 2(b). [judgement_act_referred]
Core Issue: Whether the court has jurisdiction to proceed with contempt proceedings when an appeal and a stay application are pending against the order alleged to have been disobeyed. [judgement_act_referred][9000003530014]
Court's Jurisdiction Ruling: The court held that it has jurisdiction to proceed with contempt proceedings even when an appeal and stay application are pending, though it should exercise restraint in such cases. [judgement_act_referred][9000003530017]
Facts of the Case: The petitioner's vehicle was requisitioned for the general election. The court allowed a writ petition directing the release of the vehicle forthwith. The respondents failed to comply. (!) [9000003530001]
Service of Order: The order was made on May 4, 2009, and served on the respondent on May 6, 2009. [9000003530003]
Non-Compliance: The vehicle was not released immediately on May 4 or May 6, 2009. A notice for contempt proceedings was issued on May 7/8, 2009. [9000003530004]
Respondent's Defense: The respondent argued that the filing of an appeal (MAT No. 379 of 2009) and a stay application (C.A.N. No. 4314 of 2009) justified their non-compliance. [9000003530005][9000003530010]
Timing of Stay Application: The stay application was served on the petitioner's advocate on May 8, 2009, with a notice to move it on May 12, 2009. [9000003530005][9000003530016]
Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal and stay application were a "charade" orchestrated by the respondent to delay compliance with the immediate order. [9000003530006][9000003530024]
Lack of Bona Fides: The court noted the lack of seriousness in the respondent's effort to obtain a stay, as the election process was due to end on May 13, 2009, rendering a May 12 filing futile. [9000003530023]
Legal Principle (Restraint): Mere filing of an appeal or stay does not absolve the duty to obey; however, courts should be slow to exercise contempt jurisdiction if the stay is pending and meaningful steps to obtain it were not taken. [9000003530017][9000003530019]
Precedent Cited: The judgment references Modern Food Industries (1) Ltd. v. Sachidanand Dass (1995) Supp 4 SCC 465, noting that insisting on obedience while a stay is pending can make the appeal infructuous. [9000003530018] (!)
Finding of Wilful Disobedience: The court found the respondent's conduct lacked bona fides and was a deliberate defiance of the order, constituting civil contempt under Section 2(b). [9000003530016][9000003530025]
Final Decision: The respondent was held guilty of contempt and directed to appear in court on June 29, 2009, for an appropriate order. [9000003530027] (!)

ORDER :-

The petitioner complains of the respondent having wilfully disobeyed an order of this Court made on May 4, 2009 in proceedings brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner. The petitioner had complained of a vehicle owned by the petitioner having been illegally requisitioned by the authorities for the purpose of the last general election.

2. W.P. No. 8208(W) of 2009 was decided on the basis of an earlier judgment reported at 2006 (4) CHN 207 (Anirban Ghosh v. District Election Officer) where it had been held that a private car not used for hire but meant exclusively for personal use may not be requisitioned for election purpose. The order of May 4,2009. in its operative part, reads as follows :

Since a view has been expressed by a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction which has held the field at least since the last Assembly election the writ petition is allowed on the strength of the Anirban Ghosh dictum. The respondents shall forthwith release the petitioner's vehicle and the petitioner will be entitled to payment or compensation for the duration that the vehicle, has been illegally detained by the respondent authorities in accordance with law."

3. The respondents to the writ petition were the district Magistrate and district election officer the officer-in-charge of Canning police station the sub-divisional officer. Canning sub-division and., the State of West Bengal, The State was represented on May 4, 2009 and submission was made on behalf of all the respondents.

4. The petitioner says in the present petition that a copy of the order along with a letter issued by advocate on his behalf was served on the respondent on May 6. 2009. Annexure P-4 to the contempt petition evidences due service of a letter of May 5.2009 forwarding a copy of the order. There is no dispute that the respondent was contemporaneously aware of the order and had been duly served a copy thereof on May 6,2009.

5. The car was not immediately released on May 4, 2009 despite the order having been made in open Court and in presence of counsel representing the State. The car was not released even on May 6, 2009 when the respondent was served a copy of the order. On May 8. 2009 a notice of May 7, 2009 was issued to the respondent calling upon the respondent to immediately release the vehicle or face contempt proceedings. The petitioner has averred at paragraph 11 that such notice was not accepted by the office of the respondent on May 8, 2009 and the petitioner was constrained to post such notice thereafter. In dealing with the statements in paragraph 11 of the petition, the respondent has said, at paragraph 14 of his affidavit, that "I deny and dispute the allegations and/or averments which are contrary to the admitted records."

6. The election process was due to be over on May 13,2009. On May 8,2009 advocate representing the petitioner received a copy of a stay application in connection with an appeal bearing MAT No. 379 of 2009 preferred against the order of May 4, 2009. The notice accompanying the cause papers spoke of the stay application being proposed to be moved on May 12. 2009.

7. The petitioner says that the respondent has acted contumaciously and the filing of the appeal and the stay application therein was only in furtherance of the respondent's game-plan to not comply with the order requiring the vehicle to be released forthwith. The petitioner contends that the respondent has wilfully and deliberately refused to release the vehicle despite being aware of the order of May 4, 2009 and the directions, contained therein. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent has lowered the dignity and majesty of this/Court and has prayed for the respondent being adequately dealt, with under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

8. A Rule as prayed for was issued against the respondent on May 12. 2009. On the returnable date, the respondent presented himself before Court and his personal appearance was dispensed with on his unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(Cal) 438

SANJIB BANERJEE. J. Sachin Halder – Appellant Vs. Md. Shaid – Respondent W. P. C. R. C. No. 134(W) of 2009 with W.P. No. 8208(W) of 2009Decided on : 23-6-2009

The court has jurisdiction to proceed with contempt proceedings even when an appeal and a stay application are pending in respect of the order alleged to have been disobeyed. However, the court should exercise restraint in exercising its jurisdiction in such cases.

Cases Referred (1)

SANJIB BANERJEE. J.
Sachin Halder – Appellant
Vs.
Md. Shaid – Respondent
W. P. C. R. C. No. 134(W) of 2009 with W.P. No. 8208(W) of 2009
Decided on : 23-6-2009