Acknowledgment of full and final settlement by a party negates contempt claims without credible evidence of fraud, emphasizing the need for transparency in financial disputes.

JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the review application as well as the contempt application. 2. The affidavits filed today be kept on record.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnors/review applicants submits that although the respondent-authorities were represented at the time of hearing of WPA 22050 of 2023, in which the order under contempt dated February 22, 2024 was passed, directing an amount to the tune of Rs.38,50,000/- to be paid by the respondent-authorities to the petitioners in lieu of work done by the petitioners under the IHHL Scheme, there was communication gap on the part of the respondent- authorities and due to lack of availability of relevant documents at that juncture, all the facts pertaining to the case could not be brought to the notice of the Court.

4. Learned counsel places particular reliance on the annexures to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the alleged contemnor no.1 to the contempt application, among which is a letter dated March 07, 2023 signed by one Manotosh Chakraborty, the Secretary of the petitioner, where it has been categorically mentioned by the said representative of the petitioner that in terms of the order of this Court, the petitioner gets the entire amount of dues in full and final settlement of the claim and shall not have any further grievance or financial claim in that regard.

5. Learned counsel also places reliance on an order of financial sanction issued on behalf of the Malda Zilla Parishad, Malda by the Additional District Magistrate (Zilla Parishad), Malda, where it has been stated that the amount of Rs. 19,30,000/- was being paid in final settlement of the claim of the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel submits that although there is a difference between the quantum directed to be paid by this Court and the sum actually paid to the petitioners, there is a reason why the petitioners acknowledged receipt of the same in full and final settlement of their claim.

7. By way of such reason, learned counsel places reliance on all the annexures to the affidavit-in- opposition of the alleged contemnor no.1 to the contempt application, which comprise of several memos and orders which go on to show that the petitioners had received part payment of the amount directed by this Court previously.

8. Among the said annexures, I also find copies of the bank statements of the petitioners’ accounts, which go on to show that several sums were credited to the accounts of the petitioners for the work done.

9. It is submitted that not only were such receipts suppressed by the petitioners at the time of disposal of the writ petition, the petitioners had also suppressed other germane facts which will be evident from paragraph no. 6 of the order under contempt dated February 22, 2024, where this Court had categorically recorded that, being confronted with certain averments in the report of the respondents, the petitioners had waived some of the claims on their purported bills.

10. It is, thus, submitted that the alleged contemnors ought not to be castigated for being cautious about double payment of public money. Learned counsel submits candidly that although, technically speaking, the documents-in-question now