PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE,J. - (1.) Alleged contemnor No1 Sri Susanta Mondal and the alleged contemnor No. 2 namely Balaram Pan are present in Court pursuant to my order dated June 27, 2018 and they are directed to depose in connection with the present contempt application being CPAN 528 of 2018. The said deposition is annexed in separate pages with this order.
(2.) After the above deposition is over, the following order is passed:
(3.) On a condition that the alleged contemnor Nos. 1 and 2, who according to their own admission are the joint signatories without whose signatures no fund can be released by the school, shall sign the cheque amounting to Rs. 1,40,000/- in favour of the present writ petitioner within 48 hours from today, the alleged contemnor Nos. 1 and 2 are given liberty to depart from this Court under police custody. In the event that the said cheque is so signed and handed over to the writ petitioner, the officers of the police shall release the two alleged contemnors as aforesaid from their custody. 'By custody' I mean in this context that the police officers shall be posted in the offices of the first and the second alleged contemnors and shall be in duty outside their respective residences till the cheque aforesaid is signed and handed over to the petitioner. In the event that this condition is complied with, the hearing of the present application for contempt shall stand adjourned for a period of four weeks from the date of handing over of the said cheque. During this time the alleged contemnor Nos. 1 and 2 shall be entitled to file affidavits in opposition to the contempt application where they may disclose all documents in support of their contentions. The questions and answers recorded today show that admittedly the alleged contemnor Nos. 1 and 2 did not comply with the order of this Court despite notice and knowledge. They have allowed the writ petitioner to join on June 10, 2018 but non-payment of honorarium could not be explained by them sufficiently excepting that they did not have sufficient funds even though they admitted that they did not know exactly how much arrears of honarirum was/were payable to the petitioner.;