http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: TAPAN KUMAR MUKHERJEE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HEROMONI MONDAL AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1990

BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1991 AIR  281            1990 SCR  Supl. (3)  55  1991 SCC  (1) 397        JT 1990 (4)   399  1990 SCALE  (2)1000

ACT:     Contempt  of  Courts  Act--Sections  3  and  19--Court’s orders-Compliance  of  utmost vigilance to be  exercised  by officers of Government.

HEADNOTE:     The appellant, an officer of the State Government, while acting as Junior Land Reforms Officer-cum-Block  Development Officer,  was  enjoined  to  comply  with  the  Order  dated 15.6.1987 passed by the Calcutta High Court, restraining the Respondent-State from interfering with the possession of the writ-petitioners  in respect of the disputed lands and  from cultivating the said lands. The appellant was duly  apprised with  the  said order and as a result  thereof  Block  Level CoOrdination  Committee  met  and  passed  a  resolution  on 20.7.1987  that the Officer-in-charge of the Kultuli  Police Station should take necessary action according to the  order of  the  Hon’ High Court. The appellant was a party  to  the said resolution. Despite that on 3.8.1987, he issued a  memo to  the  Officer-in-charge  of the  Kultuli  Police  Station intimating that the pattaholders mentioned in the memo  were entitled  to  cultivate the lands in dispute  and  that  the police help to the pattaholders be given during the cultiva- tion period. This memo was directly and clearly in violation of  the  injunction  order passed by the High  Court.  On  a contempt petition filed before the High Court, the appellant was  found  guilty of contempt of court and the  High  Court rejecting  the  apology tendered by him, imposed a  fine  of Rs.1,O00.  Being  aggrieved the appellant moved  a  petition before this Court, which was originally registered as  Peti- tion  for Special leave and was dismissed by this  Court  on 23.10.89. Thereafter, on being pointed out that the petition should have been treated as an appeal petition under section 19  of  the Contempt of Courts Act, the  Court  recalled  it earlier  order dated 23.10.89 and directed that SLP  be  re- numbered  as a Criminal Appeal and that is now  the  instant appeal has come up for hearing.     The  appellant contended that the memo dated 3.8.87  had been inadvertently signed by him as it was one of the sever- al  memos which he had to issue in connection  with  various disputes regarding cultivation rights during the cultivation

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

season. On the other hand the respondents 56 contended  that they had been litigating against  the  State since 1963 as the State had granted pattas in respect of the disputed  lands  to others disregarding their right  to  the land  and  the  appellant had been acting  contrary  to  the interests of the respondents in the said litigation. Allowing the appeal, this Court,     HELD:  Having decided, as a member of the  B.L.C.C.,  to give police protection to the respondents, the appellant was not likely to have taken action deliberately to go  contrary to the decision of the Committee and flout the order of  the Court. The possibility that there was some mistake or  inad- vertence  due  to pressure of work cannot be  totally  ruled out. [59F]     Officers of Government should exercise utmost  vigilance in  compliance  of courts’ orders, particularly  where  they deal  with vital issues such as cultivation rights of  land- holders. [60E]     In the present case, the appellant himself withdrew  his letter  dated 3.8.87 and police protection was  provided  to the respondents. But such lapses, even during a short inter- val,  can  sometimes cause irreparable  damage  and  injury. [60F]     Where  a  case of wilful disobedience is made  out,  the courts  will  not hesitate and will convict  the  delinquent officer  and no lenience in the court’s attitude  should  be expected from the court as a matter of course merely on  the ground that an order of conviction would damage the  service career of the concerned officer. [60F-G]

JUDGMENT: