- (1.) It is submitted by the learned advocate representing the alleged contemnors/respondents, R.P.S. Khalon & Ors., that since an appeal is pending and the paperbooks are being made ready, the alleged contemnors/respondents are not in a position to comply with the Court's directions, as contained in the order dated 5th February, 2016.
(2.) It is quite well settled in law that till an order passed by a competent Court is set aside and/or stayed and/or varied and/or modified, the said order remains valid and subsisting and is required to be complied with, both in law and in spirit. If a stand is taken by any person that he/she is unable to comply with a valid and subsisting order simply because an appeal is pending before a higher forum, it will render the concept of adherence to due process of law to a state of absolute farce. This is neither desirable nor acceptable nor permissible. If one has to accept the stand taken by the learned advocate representing the alleged contemnors/ respondents, it would mean that no order passed by any competent Court will be complied with ever, till the person aggrieved by the said order has exhausted all appellate remedies. This is certainly not in conformity with the scheme for rendering effective justice in a matter.
(3.) In this context, one may take notice of the observations made by this Court in Sajal Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2011 (1) CLJ (Cal) 263.;