- (1.) THE petitioners in this contempt application dated August 19, 2011 are alleging that the contemner has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court dated February 24, 2011 (at p.25).
(2.) THE order dated February 24, 2011 was passed disposing of a WP No.3284(W) of 2011 filed by the petitioners under art.226. The order is quoted below: "Mr.Basu says that the petitioners' application dated July 12, 2010(at p.40) was not disposed of by the Assistant Engineer of the Public Works Department (Road), and that he has no idea why in spite of the order of this Court dated July 2, 2010 (at p.48) the Assistant Engineer has not disposed of the application under s.10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 till date. The inaction on the part of the Assistant Engineer cannot be appreciated. This Court said that an application, if filed, would be disposed of without any unreasonable delay. The application is pending for around a year. I think it will be appropriate to direct immediate disposal of the application. For these reasons, I dispose of the petition directing the Assistant Engineer (the fourth respondent) to decide the petitioner's application dated July 12, 2010 (at p.40) within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. Needless to say that final decision shall be given after hearing all the parties, especially the private respondent. The final decision shall be communicated to all at once. No costs. Certified xerox." The contemner is the following person: "Sri Chiranjit Raychowdhury, Executive Engineer (PWD),Kalyani Construction Division,City Centre Building, Kalyani, District:Nadia." The Executive Engineer (PWD), Kalyani Construction Division was not a party to the WP. The case is that since the Executive Engineer was the actual authority to decide the petitioners' application under s.10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 and he has disobeyed the order of this Court, the contempt application against him is maintainable. Relying on Nalla Senapathi Sarkaral Manradiar etc. v. Sri Ambal Mills (P) Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1966 Mad 53 and Gopal Chandra Biswas & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 77 CWN 642, counsel has argued that since the Executive Engineer has disobeyed the order of this Court, contempt proceedings can be initiated against him, even though he was not a party to the WP and was not directed to do anything.
(3.) WHETHER the Executive Engineer is the actual authority empowered to exercise power is a question that cannot be decided in this contempt application. That was to be decided in the WP, if raised. It was suggested to the Court that the Assistant Engineer was empowered to exercise the power under s.10 of the Act. Hence even if the Executive Engineer is the actual authority, contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against the contemner, for the Executive Engineer was not asked to do anything. In my opinion, the two decisions cited to me do not lead to a different conclusion. Here the contemner has not taken any action to make the order of this Court ineffective. He could exercise the s.10 power in terms of the order, only if by the order he was directed to do so. His inaction, if any, cannot amount to wilful and deliberate violation of the order of this Court. For these reasons, the contempt application is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.;