A clear, lucid, and unambiguous order of a court cannot be flouted by any person or authority who can take a specious plea of being confused on the basis of legal advice solely in order to justify and/or defend non-compliance in a contempt proceeding.

Biswanath Somadder, J.

1. In answer to the Rule of Contempt issued in terms of the order dated 15th July, 2016, S.S. Shekhawat, who, at the material point of time, was the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Forces, Group Centre, Siliguri, District - Darjeeling, is present in Court and is being represented by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India. At the outset, learned Additional Solicitor General pleads forgiveness on behalf of his client and submits that his client was always willing to comply with the order of the Court dated 3rd December, 2015, passed in W.P. 24661 (W) of 2015, but could not do so in view of some confusion in his mind which crept in due to some legal advice received by him from the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General, compliance of the Court's order was never in issue so far as his client is concerned, but the legal advice he obtained created confusion in his mind with regard to the manner of compliance. The legal advice to which the contemnor refers to, however, has not been produced before this Court in the instant contempt proceeding by the learned Additional Solicitor General.

2. Be that as it may, the question that falls for consideration is whether in the facts of the instant case that there has been any wilful or deliberate or contumacious violation of the order dated 3rd December, 2015, by the contemnor S.S. Shekhawat or not. It may not be out of place to observe at this point of time that in the meanwhile, the order of the Court dated 3rd December, 2015, has been complied with. As such, the matter is now on a very narrow compass and only confined to coming to a conclusive finding as to whether the act of contempt was wilful/deliberate or not.

3. The earlier orders of this Court elaborately state the manner in which the concerned authority dealt with the Court's order dated 3rd December, 2015, passed in W.P. 24661 (W) of 2015, ever since the said order was communicated by the writ petitioner. A bare perusal of the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 3rd December, 2015, reveals that there is no scope or possibility for any confusion. The operative portion of the said judgment and order is reproduced herein-below:-

"The impugned order dated 1st August, 2015, issued by the Director Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Forces, Siliguri, West Bengal, therefore, is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. This Court directs the concerned authority of the Central Reserve Police Forces to forthwith reinstate the petitioner and allow him to continue his service as a Constable (GD) of the Central Reserve Police Forces."

4. Now, a question that arises in the facts of the instant case is whether the contemnor S.S. Shekhawat's defence - on the ground of confusion being created in his mind with regard to the manner in which the Court's order was to be complied with due to legal advice received by him - can be a justifiable defence in the facts of the instant case, or not. In order to answer to this question, it may be pertinent to observe that any individual or any authority is always at liberty to take legal advice upon receiving an order of the Court. It is, but quite natural. Therefore, the defence of S.S. Shekhawat on the ground of confusion with regard to the manner in which the Court's order was to be complied with upon receiving legal advice is required to be examined in some details, especially based on certain well known principles of law.

5. It is quite well settled in law that till an order passed by a competent Court is set aside and/or stayed and/or varied and/or modified, the said order remains valid an/or subsisting and is required to be complied with, both in law and in spirit. In this context, one may take notice of the observation of this Court in Sk. Abdul Matleb v. R.P.S. Khalon & Ors., reported in AIR 2016 Cal 235. An interesting feature of this c