http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

CASE NO.: Contempt Petition (civil) 202  of  2000

PETITIONER: MRITYUNJOY DAS & ANR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SAYED HASIBUR RAHAMAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/03/2001

BENCH: Umesh C. Banerjee & S.N. Phukan

JUDGMENT:

In SLP No. 1416 of 1997 JUDGMENT

BANERJEE, J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   The  introduction of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the statute book has been for purposes of securing a feeling of  confidence  of the people in general for due and  proper administration  of justice in the country.  It is a powerful weapon  in the hands of the law courts by reason wherefor it must  thus  be exercised with due care and caution  and  for larger interest.

   Incidentally,  a special leave petition (1416/1997)  was filed  before  this Court by Paschim Banga  Rajya  Bhumijibi Sangh  against  the  judgment  of the  Calcutta  High  Court pertaining  to the question of constitutionality of  certain provisions  of West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Acts  1981 and   1986.    The  said   Sangha  filed  an   Interlocutory Application  being I.A.No.3 OF 1999 for issuance of  certain directions which inter alia reads as below:

   (a)  direct  the State of West Bengal and  its  Revenue Authorities  not to initiate any proceedings for vesting  of the land against the members of the Petitioner Sangha and if any  vesting  proceeding has been already initiated  against the  members  of the Petitioner Sangha in that event not  to pass  any  order and maintain status-quo in respect  of  the land  in  question in all respect till the disposal  of  the Special  Leave  Petition  (Civil) No.1416  of  1997  pending before this Honble Court or in alternative clarify that the order  dated  20.3.1998  as quoted in paragraph  19-20  will apply  only to the parties thereto and not to the members of the Petitioner No.1 Sangha.

   The Interlocutory Application was heard on 29th October, 1999  and this Court was pleased to pass an order therein to the following effect:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

   At  the  request of Learned counsel for the  Applicants four  weeks time is granted to enable him to put on  record appropriate  information regarding members of the Sangha for whom  the  application is moved and the nature of  the  stay required.

   In  the meantime Learned Counsel for the Respondent will also  take appropriate instructions in connection with  this I.A.

   Subsequently  on  16th  December, 1999,  this  Court  in I.A.No.3 passed an interim order to the effect as below:@@                 JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

   Having heard Learned counsel for the parties, by way of an  interim order, it is directed that status-quo  regarding possession  on spot shall be maintained by both the sides in connection  with  the members of the  Petitioner-Sangha  who were before the High Court in the Writ Petition out of which the present proceedings arise.

                                       (Emphasis supplied)

   In   the  meantime,  learned   senior  counsel  for  the respondent-State  of  West  Bengal will verify the  list  of these  members,  (Emphasis supplied ) which is furnished  to him  by  Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and  subject  to that  verification further orders will be passed after three months.

   To be placed after three months.

   In the application (I.A.No.3) a further order was passed on 17th April, 2000 which reads as below:@@                JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

   We   have   heard  learned   senior  counsel  for   the Petitioners,  Mr.  Shanti Bhushan and Learned Senior Counsel for  respondent-State  of  West Bengal,  Mr.   Ray,  Learned Senior  Counsel for respondent-State of West Bengal is right when  he  says  that some more time is  required  as  13,000 persons  are  listed and they have to ascertain about  their existence on the spot.  We grant time up to the end of July, 2000.   I.A.   will be placed in the second week of  August, 2000.   In  the meantime, at the request of Learned  Counsel for  the Petitioners, Mr.  Shanti Bhusan we grant additional interim  relief  in continuation of our earlier order  dated 16.12.1999  to  the  effect  that if in  the  meantime,  any vesting  orders have been passed in respect of the lands  of members  of  Petitioner   Sangha who were before  the  High Court  in  the matter out of which the  present  proceedings arise,  then  those vesting orders shall not be  implemented until further orders."

   It is this order which is said to have been violated and thus  bringing the orders of this Court into ridicule.   The factum of violation is said to have been deliberate since in spite  of  the order as above and even after the service  of the  order dated 17th April, 2000 to the authorities of Land Reforms  Department,  Government  of  West  Bengal  for  its compliance,  the Petitioner No.1 being a resident of village Amriti,  District,  Malda, West Bengal and a life member  of the  Paschim Banga Rajya Bhumijibi Sangha was served with  a notice  dated  5.4.2000 under Section 57 of the West  Bengal Land  Reforms Act together with Section 14-T (3) of the said

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

Act  read with Rule 4 of the Rules framed thereunder by  the Revenue Officer Cell, Malda asking to submit details of land held  by  him  and  his family members  since  7.8.1969  and particulars of land transferred by him after that date.  The records depict that a reply to the said notice was furnished as  early as 30th April, 2000 alongwith the certification of membership  of  the Sangha and copy of the order dated  16th December,  1999  passed by this Court.  It  further  appears that a hearing did take place and the Revenue Officer passed an  order of vesting on 17th April, 2000.  Subsequently,  on the factual matrix, it appears that by the notice dated 26th April,  2000  issued by the Revenue Officer,  possession  of 37.47½ acres  of land was directed to be made over  to  the Land  Revenue  Authority  on  27.4.2000.  It  has  been  the definite case of the petitioners that in spite of receipt of both  the  orders dated 16th December, 1999 and 17th  April, 2000,  the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, English Bazar, Malda came on the site and took possession of the said land. Similar  is  the situation as regards the land belonging  to petitioner  No.2 and possession 20.76 acres of land was also obtained  by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer,  English Bazar,  Malda.   This act of obtaining possession  from  the applicants  herein is stated to be a deliberate violation of this  Courts  order and thus cannot but be ascribed  to  be contemptuous in nature.

   Mr.   Sanyal,  the learned Senior Advocate appearing  in support of the petition for Contempt contended that the high handedness  of the executive authorities is apparent in  the deliberate action of taking over possession of land from two of  the  members of the Samiti even after coming to know  of the  orders of this Court and resultantly committing an  act of gross contempt.

   Admittedly,  this  Court passed an order on 17th  April, 2000  as  a  continuation of the earlier  order  dated  16th December,  1999  to the effect that if in the meantime,  any vesting  order  has  been passed in respect of the  land  of members  of  petitioners  Sangha who were before  the  High Court  in  the  matter out of which the  present  proceeding arise,  then  those vesting orders shall not be  implemented until  further orders.  The order dated 16th December,  2000 also  categorically  records the maintenance of  status  quo regarding  possession on spot by both the State and  Private Respondents.   As  regards however the Private  Respondents, the order was directed to be made applicable to the cases of the  members of the petitioners Sangha who were before  the High  Court  in the Writ Petition out of which  the  present proceeding arose.

   Needless  to  state  that Land  Reforms  Legislation  in States  have been introduced with a view to proceed with the socialistic  approach as enshrined in the Constitution.  The amendments  have been effected in the main provisions of the act,  validity of which stands further scrutiny before  this Court.   We are however, not called upon to delve into these issues  neither  we  intend  to do  the  same.   The  noting aforesaid  is  just  to  introduce   the  subject  for   our consideration  though  in a separate jurisdiction  being  of extra-  ordinary  nature but as conferred by and  under  the statute.

   Let  us  however, at this juncture consider the  counter affidavit  as filed by the alleged Contemnors and assess the situation  as to whether there is any deliberate act on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

part  of the revenue officers of the State or an omission to note the true effect of the order which has resulted in such an  action which is said to be contemptuous in nature.   The alleged  Contemnors No.2 and 3 being Sayed Kadar Hossain and Chitaranjan  Chakraborti  stated  that as  officers  of  the Government, they have tried to discharge their duties to the best  of  their ability, capacity and understanding.   There was  never any motive or intention to violate or disobey the orders  of  this  Court.   In paragraphs  4  and  5  alleged contemnors stated as below.

   4.   We  respectfully submit that as understood  by  us that the number of the Petitioner Sangha who were before the High  Court  in the Writ Petition were understood by  us  as parties  on  the date on which the Writ Petition was  filed. The  petitioners  themselves have admitted that they  became members only in 1992-93, and the order of this Honble Court would not be applicable then as they were not members of the Sangha  on  the  date of filing the Writ Petition.   If  the interpretation  given  by the Petitioners was sought  to  be accepted,  then there could be no occasion for this  Honble Court  making  the order for verification of members of  the Sangha.   We never proceeded with the matter to violate  the orders of this Honble Court.

   5.   We  also  submit  that   in  the  proceedings,  the Petitioners  were given full opportunity of being heard  and in  fact  the Petitioner appeared through Advocate and  made submission and after considering the facts and circumstances of  the  case and also the material on record,  the  Revenue Officer   being  the  competent   Authority  under  the  Act (Contemnor No.2) recorded the following finding:

   It  appears  from certificate which was issued  by  that Sangha  that  Sl.   No.   of   Life  Membership  of   raiyat Mrityunjoy  Das  is  2698/93.  It is clear that  the  raiyat obtained  membership  in  the year 1993 and he was  not  the member of the said Sangha during the time of filing the Writ Applicant  or before the Honble High Court.  So the  raiyat is  not entitled to get benefit of the order of the  Honble Supreme Court dated 16.12.1999.

   A  true copy of the order dated 17.4.2000 in this regard is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- R 1/1.

   We  further submit that we have not tried to justify the conduct any way, by making the aforesaid statements and have stated  these  only to explain the circumstances and if  any lack of understanding as aforesaid has resulted in violation of  this  order  and consequently the Contempt of  Court,  I repent for the same and tender my unqualified apology before this  Honble Court.  I further submit that whatever I  have done  was in the course of my official work as a  Government servant  and I have no personal interest whether the process of  Land  Reforms continues or halts.  On the face  of  this order of this Honble Court, or in that way any Order of any Court,  which I am duty bound to obey.  I again submit  that if  my interpretation of the order of this Honble Court was wrong  that was because of my limitations to understand  but there  is  nothing  malafide  in it and I  cannot  think  of over-reaching or flouting the order of this Honble Court in any way or under any circumstances.

   On  the state of pleadings as above, Mr.  Tapas  Chandra Ray,   the  learned  Senior   Advocate  appearing  for   the@@

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

           JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Respondents  with  his  usual eloquence submitted  that  the@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ order  of this Court dated 16th December, 1999 pertaining to the maintenance of status quo regarding possession, has been rather  categorical  in  its application:   This  Court  has restricted   its  applicability  to   the  members  of   the petitioners  Sangha  who were before the High Court  in  the Writ  Petition  and not all and sundry.  Mr.  Ray  drew  the attention  of  the  Court  to a portion  of  the  order  (as emphasized  in  page 3 hereof) and submitted that  a  contra interpretation  to  the  order  would not  only  be  grossly irregular  but be totally unsubstantiated.  The user of  the words  who were before the High Court in the writ petition shall  have to be attributed some meaning and the  intention has   been   rather  clear  and   categorical  as   to   its applicability.  Mr.  Ray contended that this Court obviously could  not indulge in surplusage or record a specific  order without  attributing  any meaning thereto and it is in  this context Mr.  Ray further contended that in any event, if two explanations  are  available  and out of  which  one  stands adopted  by  the  alleged  contemnors which  cannot  by  any stretch,  be  termed to be wholly unwarranted,  question  of returning a verdict of guilty in an Application for Contempt does not and cannot arise.

   Contra however, is the submission of Mr.  Sanyal and Mr. Ganguli  for  the petitioners with reference to the user  of the words present proceeding by this Court which cannot as contended but mean that the order has been intended to apply to  the  applicants  before this Court, in addition  to  the members  who were members on the date of filing of the  Writ Petition  and  this  by no stretch be  restrictive  at  all. Since,  otherwise  the  order would only be  partial  and  a majority  of the persons proceeding with this litigation  as parties  herein would be deprived of the same  a  situation which  cannot  possibly  be conceived in the matters  of  an order  of this Court since this Court confers benefit on  to those  who  seek  relief in a proceeding before  this  Court indeed an attractive submission.

   Before  however, proceeding with the matter any further, be  it  noted that exercise of powers under the Contempt  of Courts  Act  shall have to be rather cautious and use of  it rather  sparingly after addressing itself to the true effect of  the contemptuous conduct.  The Court must otherwise come to  a conclusion that the conduct complained of  tentamounts to  obstruction  of  justice which if  allowed,  would  even permeat  in  our society (vide Murray & Co.  v.   Ashok  Kr. Newatia  &  Anr.:   2000 (2) SCC 367)  this  is  a  special jurisdiction  conferred  on to the law courts to  punish  an offender  for his contemptuous conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law.  It is in this context that the observations of  the this Court in Murrays case (supra) in which one  of us (Banerjee, J.) was party needs to be noticed.

   The  purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold  the majesty  and dignity of the Courts of law since the image of such  a majesty in the minds of the people cannot be led  to be distorted.  The respect and authority commanded by Courts of Law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the  entire  democratic fabric of the society  will  crumble down  if the respect for the judiciary is undermined.  It is true  that  the judiciary will be judged by the  people  for what  the judiciary does, but in the event of any indulgence

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

which  even can remotely be termed to affect the majesty  of law,  the  society is bound to lose confidence and faith  in the  judiciary  and the law courts thus, would  forfeit  the trust and confidence of the people in general.

   The  other aspect of the matter ought also to be noticed at  this  juncture viz., the burden and standard  of  proof. The  common  English phrase he who asserts must prove  has its   due  application  in  the   matter  of  proof  of  the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt.  As regards  the  standard  of  proof,  be  it  noted  that  a proceeding  under  the  extra-ordinary jurisdiction  of  the Court  in  terms of the provisions of the Contempt of  Court Act  is  quasi criminal, and as such, the standard of  proof required  is  that of a criminal proceeding and  the  breach shall  have to be established beyond reasonable doubt.   The observations  of Lord Denning in Re Bramblevale (1969 3  All ER  1062) lend support to the aforesaid.  Lord Denning in Re Bramblevale stated:

   A  contempt  of  court  is an  offence  of  a  criminal character.  A man may be sent to prison for it,.  It must be satisfactorily proved.  To use the time- honoured phrase, it must  be  proved  beyond all reasonable doubt.   It  is  not proved  by showing that, when the man was asked about it, he told  lies.   There  must  be   some  further  evidence   to incriminate him.  Once some evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale against him.  But there must be some   other  evidence.   Where   there  are  two   equally consistent  possibilities open to the Court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

   In  this context, the observations of the Calcutta  High Court  in Archana Guha v.  Ranjit Guha Neogi (1989 (II)  CHN 252)  in which one of us was a party (Banerjee, J.) seem  to be  rather apposite and we do lend credence to the same  and thus record our concurrence therewith.

   In The Aligarh Municipal Board and Others v.  Ekka Tonga Mazdoor  Union and Others (1970 (III) SCC 98), this Court in no  uncertain  term  stated that in order to  bring  home  a charge of contempt of court for disobeying orders of Courts, those  who assert that the alleged contemners had  knowledge of  the order must prove this fact beyond reasonable  doubt. This  Court  went on to observe that in case of  doubt,  the benefit ought to go to the person charged.

   In  a  similar vein in V.G.  Nigam and others v.   Kedar Nath Gupta and another (1992 (4) SCC 697), this Court stated that  it  would be rather hazardous to impose  sentence  for contempt   on  the  authorities  in  exercise  of   contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities.

   Having  discussed the law on the subject, let us thus at this  juncture  analyse as to whether in fact, the  contempt alleged to have been committed by the alleged cotemners, can said to have been established firmly without there being any element  of doubt involved in the matter and that the  Court would  not  be acting on mere probabilities having  however, due  regard  to  the  nature  of  jurisdiction  being  quasi criminal  conferred on to the law courts.  Admittedly,  this Court  directed maintenance of status quo with the following words    the  members of the petitioner  Sangha  who  were before  the High Court in the writ petition out of which the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

present  proceedings  arise.  And it is on this  score  the applicant  contended  categorically that the intent  of  the Court  to  include all the members presenting  the  Petition before  this  Court  whereas  for the  Respondent  Mr.   Ray contended  that  the same is restricted to the  members  who filed  the  writ  petition  before   the  High  Court  which culminated  in  the  initiation of  proceeding  before  this Court.   The Counter affidavit filed by the Respondents also record  the  same.  The issue thus arises as to whether  the order  stands categorical to lend credence to the answers of the respondent or the same supports the contention as raised by the applicants herein  Incidentally, since the appeal is pending in this Court for adjudication, and since the matter under  consideration have no bearing on such adjudication so far  as the merits of the dispute are concerned, we are  not expressing any opinion in the matter neither we are required to  express  opinion thereon, excepting  however,  recording that  probabilities  of  the situation may  also  warrant  a finding,  in favour of the interpretation of the  applicant. The  doubt persists and as such in any event the respondents being  the  alleged  contemners  are entitled  to  have  the benefit  or  advantage of such a doubt having regard to  the nature  of  the  proceeding as noticed  herein  before  more fully.

   In  view  of the observations as above, we are not  also inclined to go into the question of apology.  On the wake of@@                JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ the aforesaid, this Contempt Petition fails and is dismissed@@                                                    JJJJJJJJJ without however, any order as to costs.@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ