- (1.) THE petitioner has alleged that the contemnors/opposite parties have committed contempt by deliberately and wilfully violating the order of this Court dated 15. 10. 07 on W. P. No. 19280 (W) of 2007 being a writ petition filed by him. By the said order dated 15. 10. 07, the interim order passed on the petition on 19. 9. 07 was extended till 31. 1. 08 or until further orders, whichever was earlier. The court's order dated 19. 9. 07 had restrained the respondents from interfering with or disturbing the ferry service of the petitioner at Garaimari Ferry Ghat till 16. 10. 07 or until further orders, whichever was earlier. Pleading of the petitioners alleging contempt would be found in paragraph 14 of the contempt petition which is set out below: 'the petitioner states that all on a sudden inspite of due communication on 28-01-2008 the opposite parties/contemnors no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 working in collusion with Sub-Divisional Land and Land reforms Officer and Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Domkal murshidabad grabbed the possession of Garaimari-Durlovpur Ferry ghat illegally dispossessed the petitioner during the pendency of the interim order. The petitioner sought help from the opposite parties/contemnor no. 4 being the local police personnel but such help was blatantly refused on the plea that the opposite party/contemnor no. 5 has been given a new Lease by the Block Land and Land reforms Officer, Domkal, Murshidabad. It is however stated, that in reality the petitioner's Lease awarded by the Nadia Zilla Parishad was the first one and vide Memo no. 3504/xiii-06 dated 10-12-2007 such possession and running of ferry ghat by the petitioner has also been confirmed by the District Magistrate, Nadia. '
(2.) AFFIDAVITS had been filed by the contemnors/opposite parties. At the time of hearing, the allegation regarding contempt was confined to the contemnors/opposite party nos. 4 and 5. While dealing with the allegation of contempt contained in paragraph 14 of the contempt petition, the contemnor/opposite party no. 4 in his affidavit has stated as follows: 'on 27. 01. 08 Inspector in-Charge Domkal Police Station sent a message to the Officer in Charge Hogalberia Police Station through E-mail vide ZOU NR No. 408-413 dated 27. 01. 08 that 'in compliance to the order of West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, as cited above, Block Land and Land Reforms Officer Domkal will hand over the charge of Rajapur Moushmary Ferry Ghat to the Secretary domkal Patni Samabay Samity on 28. 01. 08 at 12. 00 hrs. please ensure peace at your side of the ghat'. After getting this message apprehending Law and Order problem Officer and Force were sent to durlovpur Ghat to perform Law and Order duty for maintaining peace and tranquility at that area. The petitioner Anup Biswas did not sought any help from local police. On 29. 01. 08 at about 21. 10 hrs. petitioner Anup Biswas came at this Police Station and produced a letter of Learned Advocate Subhobrata Das which was addressed (I)Domkal Panchayet Samity (2) Block Development Officer Domkal, murshidabad (3) Domkal Thana Ferry Patni Samabay Samity Ltd. District : Murshidabad. In that letter Learned Advocate wrote that His lordship has been pleased to grant an interim order of Injunction restraining each one from interfering with the running of Garaimari ferry Ghat by Sri Anup Biswas. He also wrote that the said interim order was extended till 31. 01. 2008. So, on 28. 01. 2008 the Officer and force of Hogalberia Police Station went near Durlovpur-Moushmary ferry Ghat only to perform Law and order duty on the basis of information conveyed by Inspector-In-Charge Domkal Police Station. Sri Anup Biswas, the petitioner, did not meet with said Samit bhattacharjee, Officer-in-Charge, Hogalberia Police Station. Neither on 27. 01. 2008 nor on 28. 01. 2008. I have not worked in collusion with other Opposite parties as alleged or at all any point of time and the said allegation is denied and disputed. '
(3.) RESPONDENT 5 in his affidavit-in-opposition has dealt with allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the petition stating as follows : 'in respect of the statement made in paragraph No. 14 and 15 of the said application I deny and dispute all the statements and allegation made and raised therein save and except what are matter of record, what are admitted by me in writing hereinbefore hereinafter and elsewhere and in this connection I say that the statements made therein are false and fabricated and I further say that there is no ferry ghat in the name of Garimari Durlovpur ferry ghat and as such the question of grabbed the possession of the said ferryghat does not arise at all. I further say that the petitioner is the lessee of Garimari Ferry ghat and till date the petitioner is possessing and/or enjoying the said garimari Ferry ghat without any break and/or interruption. I further state that on 28. 01. 2008 the Block Land and Land Reforms officer, Domkal handover me the possession of Rajapur Mahishmari ferry ghat which is situated far away from the Garimari ferry ghat as the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Domkal settle the said rajapur Mahishmari Ferry ghat in favour of Domkal Thana Ferry Patni sambai Samity and I am the Secretary of the said Samity. I further state that at no point of time I have interfered and/or disturbed with the peaceful possession of the Garimari Ferry ghat. ';