A contemnor's alleged actions must demonstrate wilful disobedience of court orders to constitute contempt; mere procedural issues do not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. This contempt application has been filed alleging wilful violation by the alleged contemnor, of a judgment and order dated July 25, 2022, whereby we had disposed of FMA 767 of 2022 along with COT 64 of 2022. FMA 767 of 2022 was an appeal filed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation (in short HMC) against the judgment and order dated February 3, 2022, whereby a learned Judge of this Court had disposed of WPA 557 of 2022, being a writ petition filed by the present petitioner against HMC and others. COT 64 of 2022 was a cross objection filed by the present petitioner against the same judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.

2. The present petitioner (in short “Modern”) participated in a tender floated by HMC and emerged as the successful bidder. Accordingly, the contract was awarded to Modern. The work related to improvement of a road in Howrah District. Modern says that it completed the work to the satisfaction of HMC way back in 2015. Form A as well as completion certificate were issued by HMC. The bills raised by Modern were certified by the concerned officer in HMC. However, the bills have not been paid.

3. With the above grievance, Modern approached a learned Judge of this Court by filing WPA no. 10112 of 2020. By an order dated January 18, 2021, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:-

“The petitioner has performed its part of the work and it is the duty of the Howrah Municipal Corporation to pay the bills in respect of the work done by the petitioner.

In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing the Howrah Municipal Corporation to take steps for clearing the dues of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of communication of a copy of this order.

In the event the Howrah Municipal Corporation disputes the bills which have been raised by the petitioner, the same shall also be intimated to the petitioner immediately.”

4. Subsequent thereto, a hearing appears to have been held before the Controller of Finance, HMC, wherein Modern participated. The Controller of Finance passed an order dated November 29, 2021, rejecting Modern’s claim. Several grounds were mentioned in such rejection order. One of the grounds was that the subject contract was awarded to Modern without following the process of e-tender as was mandatory under the applicable Government Orders.

5. Challenging the said order of the Controller of Finance, HMC, Modern approached the learned Single Judge in the present round of litigation, by filing WPA 557 of 2022. By a judgment and order dated February 3, 2022, the learned Judge set aside the order dated November 29, 2021, passed by the Controller of Finance. The matter was sent back for being considered afresh “by the Commissioner or his delegate above the rank of the Controller of Finance to decide the issues afresh in terms of the order dated January 18, 2021, passed by a Hon’ble Judge of this Court.” The operative portion of the order dated February 3, 2022, reads as follows:-

“The only issue to be decided in this case is whether the work was completed or to what extent was the work completed by the petitioner and what amounts should be released to the petitioner on the basis of the bills raised pursuant to the work done by the petitioner. Illegalities in the tendering process detected subsequent to the work being completed, cannot be a ground for non-payment of the dues of the petitioner.

The legitimate dues of the petitioner as per the work completed by the petitioner must be released by the