Full Judgment Text
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: