Tapan Kumar Mukherjee vs Heromoni Mondal And Anr on 14 November, 1990

           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
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: