Non-compliance with a court order may not constitute willful disobedience if the party attempted to follow statutory procedures, but failed to provide detailed reasons as required.

JUDGMENT :

I.P. MUKERJI, J.

1. These two contempt applications are disposed of by this common judgment. They arise out of a judgment and order dated 11th July, 2016 made in the writ applications [WP. No. 53 of 2014 (Ansar Ahmed & Ors. Vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. and W.P. No.142 of 2014 (Sk. Jahir & Ors. Vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.)].

2. In that writ, the writ petitioners had challenged the declaration of premises No.20B, Karl Marx Sarani, Kolkata – 700023 as a heritage building by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. They were the present owners of the building, having acquired it on 4th January, 1990. The reason why the said premises was declared as a heritage building was that according to the Corporation, Michael Madhusudan Dutta was born there. Disposing of the writ application this Court passed the following order:

“I think, in the circumstances, I should refer the declaration of the subject building as Heritage to the Commission, to review and reassess the view taken by the said Expert Committee and the Heritage Conservation Committee endorsed by the Corporation. This review or reconsideration should be done following the guidelines given in this judgement and upon notice to the petitioners upon hearing them or upon giving them an opportunity of hearing and by a reasoned decision within three months of communication of this order. I order, accordingly. If the decision of the Heritage Commission is that the recommendation of the Heritage Conservation Committee was correct, then that is the end of the matter. If the decision is that it was incorrect, then the decision of the Commission will be send to the Mayor-in-Council under Section 425B of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and, thereafter, to the Corporation for final approval of the same. The Corporation should be able to take the decision, if so required within a further period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the decision of the Heritage Commission. The Corporation will not ordinarily interfere with the decision of the Commission. If it does, it has to be supported by detailed reasons. These two writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of.”

3. It appears from the records that the West Bengal Heritage Commission acted promptly on the basis of the said judgment and order. Notices were issued by them to the parties to appear before it on 4th November, 2016. A joint inspection was held on 8th December, 2016.

4. The letter of the Heritage Commission to the Corporation dated 5th September, 2017 said that no documentary proof was available to substantiate the assertion that Michael Madhusudan Dutta spent a considerable part of his pre-adulthood life in the building. In the absence of any documentary proof notifications/advertisements were published in newspapers on 28th July, 2016 seeking information in this regard from any person. The Commission reported that no such information was available. On 5th September, 2017 the Commission disposed of the reference before it by citing absence of evidence. In other words, the Commission was of the opinion that there was no evidence to suggest that the poet spent some part of his life in that building. Since the decision of the Heritage Conservation Committee was at variance with that of the Corporation, it was under the judgment and order dated 11th July, 2016, to be sent to the Mayor-in-Council under Section 425B of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and thereafter to the Corporation for final approval of the same. The Corporation was granted eight weeks’ time to signify its decision. It appears that the decision of the Heritage Commission was communicated to the Corporation on 5th September, 2017. In or about the end of June to the first week of July, 2018 the present applications alleging contempt (CC 37 of 2018 & 39 of 2018) were taken out by the writ petitioners alleging deliberate inaction on their part to take a decision to delete the subject premises from the