{"id":87869,"date":"2002-03-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2"},"modified":"2017-11-09T21:42:24","modified_gmt":"2017-11-09T16:12:24","slug":"anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2","title":{"rendered":"Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: Banerjee<\/div>\n
Bench: U.C. Banerjee, Y.K. Sabharwal<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nContempt Petition (civil) 260-261  of  2001\nAppeal (civil)\t2906-2907\t of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nANIL RATAN SARKAR & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHIRAK GHOSH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/03\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nU.C. Banerjee & Y.K. Sabharwal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Banerjee, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe most accepted methodology of governmental working
\nought always to be fairness and in the event of its absence, law
\nCourts would be within its jurisdiction to deal with the matter
\nappropriately.\t This proposition is so well settled that we need not
\ndilate further on to this.   It is this concept of fairness which
\nMr.Ganguli, appearing in support of the Petition for contempt very
\nstrongly contended, is totally absent in spite of three final rounds of
\nlitigation upto this Court between the parties. Mr. Bhaskar Gupta,
\nlearned senior advocate appearing for the alleged contemnors,
\nhowever, contended that the conduct of the respondents can neither
\nbe termed to be unfair or in disregard to the orders of the Court on a
\ntrue reading of the order  this stand of the respondents, however,
\nstands negated by Mr.Ganguli.  The conduct, Mr.Ganguli,
\ncontended, is not only deliberate but utterly perverse and in grossest
\nviolation of the orders of this Court and by reason therefor the fruit
\nof the litigation has not yet been made available and being decried
\nto the petitioner for one reason or the other for the last about 15
\nyears. Incidentally, it would be convenient to note that the principal
\nissue involved in the matter pertains to the entitlement of the
\npetitioners to the scale equivalent to that of Physical Instructors in
\nthe scale of Rs.700-1600 as on 2nd July, 1984 and Rs.2200-4000
\nw.e.f. 1986.\n<\/p>\n
Turning, however, on to the factual score, it appears that the
\npetitioners are Science Graduates of different universities in the
\ncountry and have been appointed as Laboratory Assistants in
\ncolleges and in addition to their normal duties, the petitioners were
\nsupposed to assist the teachers and help the students in practical
\nclasses, impart instructions to the students in practical classes and
\nto perform demonstration work including preparation of the lesson
\nunits in the practical classes.\t  According to the petitioners these
\nLaboratory Assistants were all along being treated as teaching staff
\nand pay and allowances including the Government share of
\nDearness Allowances were paid to them until the issuance of the
\nGovernment Order No.288\t Education (CS) dated 21st March,
\n1969 wherein Laboratory Assistants of non-government affiliated
\ncolleges were treated as members of the non-teaching staff.   The
\neffect of such re-designation had a direct impact as regards the
\npayment of Dearness Allowances and obviously the same being
\nprejudicial to the interest of the petitioners, representations
\nfollowed against the Government Order, but, however, to no effect.
\nRepresentations were also made by reason of the withdrawal of
\nteaching status as the Graduate Laboratory Assistants had to
\ndischarge teaching function as well, apart from the normal conduct
\nof the Laboratory work.\n<\/p>\n
The factual score depict that subsequently in August, 1983 the
\nState Government redesignated the Laboratory Assistants as
\nLaboratory Instructors\tit is on this score that Mr. Ganguli, learned
\nsenior counsel appearing in support of the petition very strongly
\ncriticised.   The change of nomenclature according to him was
\notherwise meaningless as there was neither any conferment  of
\nstatus of teachers or the grant of any pay scale consistent with the
\nteaching status.   The Government notification was attributed to be
\na mischievous deception and a “hoax”  a rather strong criticism :
\nthe question, therefore, arises whether there was any justification of
\nsuch an attribute to the Government notification dated 10th August,
\n1983 : a short question consequently, thus  what was the necessity
\nfor issuance of such an order  would the change of nomenclature
\nassist in any way the Graduate Laboratory Assistants?\tA bare
\nperusal of the notification does not howsoever give any reason
\nwhatsoever as to the necessity of its issuance\tthe notification on
\nthe contrary makes it clear that there would be no enhancement of
\npay as also the status as non-teaching staff would remain
\nunchanged : It is only the word “Assistant” was replaced by the
\nword “Instructors”  but does that confer any material benefit to the
\npersons concerned?   The answer\t cannot in the factual context\tbut
\nbe in the negative.   It is on this background and upon perusal of the
\nnotification, Mr. Ganguli’s criticism seems to be rather apposite
\nthough couched in a very  strong  language but by reason of  the
\nfact  situation of the matter in issue\tand if we may say so,
\nprobably justifiably so.\n<\/p>\n
Be it noted that Graduate Laboratory Assistants working in
\ngovernment colleges have been given the status and designations of
\nDemonstrators and have been accepted as members of teaching
\nstaff. According to the petitioners they possess similar
\nqualifications, experience etc. but even though being similarly
\ncircumstanced, the Graduate Laboratory Assistants of sponsored
\nand non-government private colleges of West Bengal stand
\ndiscriminated against the Graduate Laboratory Assistants of
\nGovernment colleges in West Bengal.    The earlier writ petition
\nwhich stand concluded by this court’s order dated 26th July, 1994
\ncontained detailed list of University Acts and Statutes wherein
\n“teachers” have been defined to “include the Instructors”.
\nNeedless to place on record that by reason of the act of
\ndiscrimination and having failed to obtain any redress from the
\nState-respondents the petitioners moved the learned Single Judge of
\nthe Calcutta High Court in the earlier Writ Petition for issuance of a
\nwrit of Mandamus to treat the Graduate Laboratory Assistants as
\nteaching staff as per the definition contained in different University
\nAct and also to give them a scale of pay equivalent to that of
\nPhysical Instructors.\tBy a judgment and order dated 29th July,
\n1987 the learned Single Judge issued a writ of Mandamus upon a
\ndetailed judgment the operative portion whereof is set out herein
\nbelow :-\n<\/p>\n
“..The Rule accordingly is made absolute and
\nthe State Respondents are hereby commanded by
\nthe issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus
\nto treat the Graduate Laboratory Assistants who
\nhave already been redesignated as “Laboratory
\nInstructors” as teaching staff and to pay them in
\naccordance with the existing scale of pay
\nprescribed for the Physical Instructors with effect
\nfrom 10th August, 1983 with all arrears.”\n<\/p>\n
  The appeal taken therefrom by the State Government
\nresulted in confirmation of the order by the judgment of the
\nAppellate Bench dated May 15, 1992.   The State of West Bengal,
\nhowever, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
\norder of the Appellate Bench of the High Court moved a Special
\nLeave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before this
\nCourt and this Court finally on 26th July, 1994 refused to interfere
\nwith the order and disposed of the matter with a speaking order.
\nRelevant extracts of the same however are set out herein below :-\n<\/p>\n
 “.. the Division Bench of the High Court upheld
\nthe findings of the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
We have heard learned counsel for the
\nparties.   We see no ground to interfere with the
\nreasoning and the conclusions reached by the
\nlearned Single Judge as upheld by the Division
\nBench of the High Court.   We are, however, of the
\nview that the respondents-petitioners be paid the
\nrevised scale of pay, as directed by the High Court,
\nwith effect from August 1, 1987 instead of August
\n10, 1983.\n<\/p>\n
The arrears shall be paid to the respondents
\nin two installments, first by the end of February
\n1995 and the second installment by August 31,
\n1995.\tThe appeal is dismissed with the above
\nmodifications.\t No costs.”\n<\/p>\n
A bare perusal of the order of this Court dated 26th July, 1994
\ncategorically depicts that apart from the change of date of
\nentitlement from August 10, 1983 to 1st August, 1987, this Court in
\nfact did in unequivocal language record its concurrence with the
\nreasonings and conclusions of the learned Single Judge as affirmed
\nby the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
In the order dated 26th July, 1994, as passed, this Court also
\nwas pleased to record certain statements of Mr. Ganguli which
\nreads as below:\n<\/p>\n
“Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned counsel appearing for
\nthe respondents has very fairly stated that his
\nclients are not asking for the pay-scale of
\nLecturer.   According to him, the pay scale of
\nPhysical Instructors is equivalent to that of
\nDemonstrators i.e. pay scale to which his clients
\nare entitled to in terms of the judgment of the
\nHon’ble High Court.”\n<\/p>\n
It is however in terms of the order of this Court as noticed
\nherein above, the State Government on 26th December, 1994 has
\nissued a circular in purported compliance with the order of this
\nCourt.\t Let us however examine the circular and assess the
\nsituation ourselves as to the compliance of the earlier order of this
\nCourt.\t The circular reads as below :-\n<\/p>\n
“In the circumstances, the Governor is pleased to
\norder that the scale of pay in respect of all
\nGraduate Laboratory Instructors of non-\n<\/p>\n
Government colleges may be revised to Rs.1390-
\n45-1615-55-2055-65-2445-75-2970 with effect
\nfrom 1st August, 1987 and the arrears involved on
\naccount of revision of\ttheir scale of pay paid in
\nthe manner as indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
The Governor is further pleased to order that
\nthe Graduate Laboratory Instructors of Non-
\nGovernment Colleges shall continue to enjoy
\nteaching status as given to them in GO No.1039-
\nEdn. CS dated 27.7.1988.”\n<\/p>\n
The circular, however, not been able to put an end to the
\npetitioners’ grievance by reason wherefor, the same was further
\nchallenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226 before the
\nlearned Single Judge who, however,  was pleased to quash the same
\nupon recording concurrence to the  contentions as raised by the
\npetitioners.\t The learned Single Judge categorically recorded that
\nthe petitioners being Graduate Laboratory Instructors, question of
\nfurther classifying them does not and cannot arise and upon reliance
\nof the annual report as noticed above quashed and set aside the
\ncircular.   The State Government however being aggrieved went
\nbefore the Appellate Court and the Appellate Bench however
\nallowed the appeal and opined that the Government Order dated
\n26th December, 1994 cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to
\nthe decision of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
The further factual score depicts that as against the decision of
\nthe Hon’ble High Court pertaining to the Government order dated
\n26th December, 1994, the petitioners herein moved this Court under
\nArticle 136 and this Court upon a detailed judgment dealt with the
\nissue and came to a conclusion to the following effect :\n<\/p>\n
“This Court at an earlier occasion
\nunequivocally upheld the reasonings of the
\nlearned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition as
\naccepted by the Appellate Bench and on the wake
\nof such a finding of this Court question of
\ndecrying a pay scale which is otherwise available
\nto another teacher (in this case the Physical
\nInstructor) does not and cannot arise more so by
\nreason of the earlier order of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
Administrative ipse dixit cannot infiltrate on to an
\narena which stands covered by judicial orders.”\n<\/p>\n
It is on the basis of the aforesaid, the appeals were allowed
\nand the\t order of the Appellate Bench of the High Court of Calcutta
\nstood set aside and quashed and that of the learned Single Judge
\nstood restored.\t  This Court, however, further directed that the
\nentitlement by reason of the revision should be made available from
\n1st August, 1987 as directed by this Court in its earlier judgment
\ndated 26th July, 1994.\t The petitioners, however, consequent upon
\nthe said judgment and order called upon the  State officials being
\nthe alleged contemnor No.1 to comply with the directions of this
\nCourt and subsequently, the contemnor No.2 issued a notice
\nrequiring the petitioners to attend the hearing before the Principal
\nSecretary, Department of Higher Education on 18th May, 2001.
\nSome correspondence exchanged between the parties  whereas the
\npetitioners contended immediate compliance with the order of this
\nCourt, the alleged contemnors tried to feign ignorance about the
\nearlier litigation and requested for supply of all copies of the
\nrelevant documents which, as the record depicts, stand supplied
\nimmediately thereafter.\t  There has however been a total silence
\nthereafter and the petitioners felt it incumbent upon themselves to
\nbring it to the notice of this Court by way of a petition under the
\nContempt of Courts Act.\n<\/p>\n
Before proceeding with the matter further, certain basic
\nstatutory features ought to be noticed at this juncture.   The
\nContempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced in the Statute
\nBook for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the
\npeople in general and for due and proper administration of justice in
\nthe country  undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of the
\nlaw Courts but that by itself operates as a string of caution and
\nunless thus otherwise satisfied beyond doubt, it would neither be
\nfair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under
\nthe Statute.   The observation as above finds support from a
\ndecision of this Court in  Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati & Anr.<\/a>
\n(2001 (7) SCC 530), wherein one of  us (Banerjee, J.) stated as
\nbelow :-\n<\/p>\n
“As regards the burden and standard of
\nproof, the common legal phraseology “he who
\nasserts must prove” has its due application in the
\nmatter of proof of the allegations said to be
\nconstituting the act of contempt.  As regards the
\n“standard of proof”, be it noted that a proceeding
\nunder the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court in
\nterms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
\nAct is quasi-criminal, and as such, the standard of
\nproof  required is that of a criminal proceeding and
\nthe breach shall have to be established beyond all
\nreasonable doubt.”\n<\/p>\n
\tSimilar is the situation in Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. v. Sayed
\nHasibur Rahaman & Ors.<\/a> (2001 (3) SCC 739)  and as such we need
\nnot dilate thereon further as to the burden and standard of proof vis-
\na-vis the Contempt of Courts Act – Suffice it to record that powers
\nunder the Act should be exercised  with utmost care and caution
\nand that too rather sparingly and in the larger interest of the society
\nand for proper administration of the justice delivery system in the
\ncountry.  Exercise of power within the meaning of the Act of 1971
\nshall thus be a rarity and that too in a matter on which there exists
\nno doubt as regards the\t initiation of the action being bona fide.
\nIt may also be noticed at this juncture that  mere disobedience
\nof an order may not be sufficient to amount to a “civil contempt”
\nwithin the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971  the element
\nof willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the
\ncharge within the meaning of the Act and lastly, in the event two
\ninterpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor
\npertains to one such interpretation  the act or acts cannot be
\nascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature.   A doubt in the
\nmatter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct if raised, question
\nof success in a contempt petition would not arise.\n<\/p>\n
It is on these broad features however let us analyse the action
\nof the respondents for the purposes of ascribing it to be willful and
\ncontumacious  : whereas Mr. Ganguli answered by reference to the
\ncontextual facts as a deliberate and willful act, both Mr. Altaf
\nAhmad, the learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Bhaskar
\nGupta, learned senior advocate appearing for the alleged
\ncontemnors, rather strongly ventilated their negation to the
\naccusations of Mr. Ganguli.\n<\/p>\n
It is at this stage that the earlier order passed by this Court
\nmay be of some relevance and the same reads as below:
\n“A teacher cannot possibly be allowed a pay
\nscale of a non-teaching post.\tThe same is a
\ncontradiction in terms and we need not dilate
\nthereon.   The criterion of fixation of pay scale is
\ndependent upon the placement of the person
\nconcerned  in the event the placement is in a
\nteaching post obviously one expects to get a pay
\nscale fixed for a teacher and not for a non-\n<\/p>\n
teaching member of the staff.\tApparently the
\nHigh Court has not dealt with the issue in this
\nperspective and thus clearly fell into an error in
\ncategorising a teacher with a non-teaching pay
\nscale.\t The circular clearly authorises the
\nGraduate Laboratory Instructors of non-\n<\/p>\n
government colleges to continue to have the
\nteaching status but decries the financial benefits
\ntherefor!  Would the same be not an arbitrary
\nexercise of powers or can it by any stretch be
\nsuggested to be otherwise rational and
\nindiscriminatory.   This Court at an earlier
\noccasion unequivocally upheld the reasoning of
\nthe learned Single Judge in the earlier writ
\npetition as accepted by the Appellate Bench and
\nin the wake of such a finding of this Court
\nquestion of decrying a pay scale which is
\notherwise available to another teacher (in this case
\nthe Physical Instructor) does not and cannot arise
\nmore so by reason of the earlier order of this
\nCourt.”\n<\/p>\n
Significantly, the Secretary, Department of Finance,
\nGovernment of West Bengal, has with meticulous care recorded the
\nstatements as in the earlier affidavit filed before this Court\tthough,
\nhowever, with a preface that the statements in the counter affidavit
\nstand out to be the outcome of his understanding of the order of this
\nCourt dated 20th April, 2001 and it is on the basis of the said
\nunderstanding, the proposal for grant of scale of pay of Rs.1420 to
\nRs. 3130 stands concurred by him.  Obviously, the notification
\ndated 2nd July, 1984 issued by the Government of West Bengal as
\nregards the revision of scale of pay of the Physical Instructors was
\nalso the resultant effect of such an understanding.   It is in this
\ncontext, the Finance Secretary of the State Government has stated
\nas below :-\n<\/p>\n
“Subsequently by a Notification dated 2nd
\nJuly, 1984 issued by the Government of West
\nBengal, the State Government on the
\nrecommendation of the University Grants
\nCommission and Government of India revised the
\nscale of pay of the Physical Instructors to Rs.700\/-\n<\/p>\n
– Rs.1600\/- which was equal to the scale of pay of
\nthe lecturer.\tAt that point of time also the scale
\nof pay of Demonstrators continued to be Rs.500\/-
\nto Rs.900\/-.”\n<\/p>\n
In the earlier judgment, this Court while noting down certain
\nrecord of proceedings observed as below :-\n<\/p>\n
“On this score, a chart has been produced in
\nthe Court on 20.3.2001 which however cannot by
\nany stretch be said to be in support of the
\ncontentions of the State that there were existing
\ntwo different grades and scales of pay amongst
\nPhysical Instructors, one being qualified Physical
\nInstructors and the other being unqualified
\nPhysical Instructors.\n<\/p>\n
Significantly the annual report as published
\nby the Education Department of the State
\nGovernment unmistakably records the existence
\nof one grade of Physical Instructors under para
\n8.16.\tThe annual report details out teachers of
\ngovernment colleges in the manner as below:<\/p>\n
“8.16.\tTeachers of government colleges<\/p>\n
Sl.  Category of teachers\t Pay\tScale
\nNo.\t\t\t\t (Basic) w.e.f.1.1.1986<\/p>\n
5.   Demonstrator\t\t  Rs.1740-3000\n<\/p>\n
4.   Physical Instructor\t  Rs.2200-4000\n<\/p>\n
3.   Lecturer\t\t\t  Rs.2200-4000\n<\/p>\n
2.\tProfessor\/Vice-Principal  Rs.3700-5700
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   (Grade II)\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t   1.\tPrincipal\t\t\t   Rs.4500-7300″\n<\/p>\n
\t Para 8.2.1 also records the details of\t the
\nadministration of non-government colleges as below:\n<\/p>\n
\t The teachers of non-government colleges
\nare of the following categories (basic):<\/p>\n
\n\n1.   Laboratory Instructors\t Rs.1390-2970\n2.\tDemonstrators\n3.\tPhysical Instructor\t as in government\n4.\tLecturer\t\t       colleges.\n5.\tPrincipal\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t This itself however negates the contentions
\nas raised by the State.\t  Laboratory Instructors in
\nnon-government colleges are termed as teachers
\nwith scale of pay Rs.1390-2970 whereas Physical
\nInstructors were also termed as teachers and scale
\nof pay appears to be similar “as in government
\ncolleges” i.e. Rs.2200-4000.   Secondly, in para
\n8.2.4 revised pay scale of the non-teaching posts
\n(Group B pay scale) has been noted to be
\nRs.1390-2970.\tIt thus leaves no manner of doubt
\nthat whereas the petitioners were shown as
\nteachers of non-government colleges they were in
\nfact granted the scale of pay applicable only to
\nGroup B employees belonging to non-teaching
\nstaff and thus granted a non-teaching scale.”\n<\/p>\n
    Similar is the situation in the counter-affidavit filed presently
\nin this matter as well : Is this fair ?\t  The answer having regard to
\nthe factual backdrop cannot but be in the negative.   It is neither fair
\nnor reasonable on the part of a senior Civil Service Personnel\tto
\nfeign ignorance or plead understanding when the direction of this
\nCourt stands crystal clear in the judgment.   Government employees
\nought to be treated at par with another set of employees and this
\nCourt on an earlier occasion lent concurrence to the view of the
\nlearned Single Judge that the Circulars issued by the State
\nGovernment cannot but be ascribed to be arbitrary : Government is
\nnot a machinery for  oppression and  ours being a welfare State as a
\nmatter of fact\tbe opposed thereto. It is the people’s welfare that the
\nState is primarily concerned with and avoidance of compliance with
\na specific order of the Court cannot be termed to be a proper
\nworking of a State body in terms of the wishes and aspirations of
\nthe founding fathers of our Constitution. Classless, non-
\ndiscriminate and egalitarian society  are not meaningless jargons
\nso that they only remain as the basic factors of our socialistic state
\non principles only and not to have any application in the realities of
\nevery-day life : one section of the employees would stand benefited
\nbut a similarly placed employee would not be so favoured  why
\nthis attitude ?\t Obviously there is no answer.\tSurprisingly, this
\nattitude persists even after six rounds of litigation travelling from
\nCalcutta to Delhi more than once  the answer as appears in the
\ncounter-affidavit is an expression of sorrow by reason of the
\nunderstanding cannot be countenanced in the facts presently under
\nconsideration. A plain reading of the order negates the
\nunderstanding of the State Respondents and the conduct in no
\nuncertain terms be ascribed to be the manifestation of an intent to
\ndeprive one section of the employees being equally circumstanced
\n come what may and this state of mind is clearly expressed in the
\ncounter-affidavit though however in temperate language.\t  The
\nquestion of bona fide understanding thus does not and cannot arise
\nin the facts presently.\t Is it a believable state of affairs that the order
\nof the learned Single Judge as early as the first writ petition, has not
\nbeen properly understood by the senior most bureaucrat of the State
\nGovernment : the same misunderstanding continues in terms of the
\nappellate Court’s order and the third in the line of order is that of
\nthe apex Court.\t  The understanding again continues even after the
\nsecond writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge at the
\nHigh Court and the similar understanding continues even after the
\nso to say clarificatory order by this Court, as appears from the order
\ndated 20th April, 2001.\t Even in the counter-affidavit, filed in
\nContempt Petition, the understanding still continues  we are at a
\nloss as to what is this understanding about : the defence of
\n‘understanding’ undoubtedly is an ingenious effort to avoid the
\nrigours of an order of Court but cannot obliterate the action  the
\nattempted avoidance through the introduction of the so-called
\nconcept of lack of understanding cannot, however, be a permanent
\navoidance, though there may be temporary and short-lived gains.
\nThe order of this Court cannot possibly be interpreted as per the
\nunderstanding of the Respondents, but as appears from the plain
\nlanguage used therein. Neither the order is capable of two several
\ninterpretations nor there is any  ambiguity and the same does not
\nrequire further clarity.  The order is categorical  and\t clear in its
\ncontext and meaning.  The Court’s orders are to be observed in its
\nobservance, rather than in its breach.\n<\/p>\n
     This matter is pending in Courts since more than last 15 years,
\nbut unfortunately the litigatious spirit of the State-respondent have
\nnot minimised even to the slightest extent – the spirit continues and
\nso is the deprivation.\t The defence of understanding is not only
\nmoonshine but a deliberate attempt to over-reach this Court’s order
\nand as such willfulness in the matter of disregard of this Court’s
\norder is apparent on the face of it and we are not prepared to accept
\nthe same as a defence of an action for deliberate and willful
\ndisregard of an order of Court.\t  We find that the actions on the part
\nof the respondent-authorities are not only unreasonable but
\ndeliberate and spiteful and that too in spite of a specific direction in
\nall the five judgments so far obtained by the petitioners in their
\nfavour.\t  Avoidance is written large and it would be difficult for us
\nto consume the same without any particular rhyme or reason.
\nIn the contextual facts there cannot be any laxity as otherwise
\nthe Law Courts would render itself useless and its order to utter
\nmockery.  Feeling of confidence and proper administration of
\njustice cannot but the hall-mark of Indian Jurisprudence and contra
\naction by Courts will lose its efficacy.  Tolerance of Law Courts
\nthere is, but not without limits and only upto a certain point and not
\nbeyond the same.\n<\/p>\n
 On the wake of the aforesaid, we do find that the respondents
\nhave willfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court in
\nthe guise of a totally non-acceptable and sham defence of
\nunderstanding and thus rendered themselves punishable under the
\nprovisions of Article 142 of the Constitution and also under the  Act
\nof 1971.\n<\/p>\n
Be it placed on record that by the order dated 1st February,
\n2002, this Court directed the presence of all the alleged contemnors
\non the next date, i.e. on 8th March, 2002 since the order was to be
\npronounced in the presence of the respondents.\t The Office-Report,
\nhowever, depicts that one of the respondents has filed an
\napplication for exemption from appearance. We do feel it expedient
\nto allow the application for exemption, though by reason therefor
\nthe consequence of the findings as above cannot be pronounced as
\nof date.  In that view of the matter, let this matter appear two weeks
\nhence in the list (22nd March, 2002) for  further orders.   The
\nrespondents are directed to be present in Court on the next date of
\nhearing.   No further notice need be served to the respondents
\nexcepting the applicant in I.A. No2 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n
..J.\n<\/p>\n
(Umesh C. Banerjee)<\/p>\n
..J.\n<\/p>\n
(Y.K. Sabharwal)<\/p>\n
March 8, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002 Author: Banerjee Bench: U.C. Banerjee, Y.K. Sabharwal CASE NO.: Contempt Petition (civil) 260-261 of 2001 Appeal (civil) 2906-2907 of 2001 PETITIONER: ANIL RATAN SARKAR & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: HIRAK GHOSH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/03\/2002 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-87869","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAnil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-09T16:12:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T16:12:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2\"},\"wordCount\":4341,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2\",\"name\":\"Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T16:12:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-09T16:12:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T16:12:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2"},"wordCount":4341,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2","name":"Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T16:12:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-ratan-sarkar-ors-vs-hirak-ghosh-ors-on-8-march-2002-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs Hirak Ghosh & Ors on 8 March, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87869","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=87869"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87869\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87869"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87869"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87869"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}