- (1.) This frivolous contempt petitioner has embarrassed Court more than the alleged contemnors. It has now become a practice in this Court for the contempt jurisdiction to be unnecessarily invoked or toyed with and used as an instrument of oppression. There could be no better example of such misadventure than the present proceedings.
(2.) In W.P. No. 1799 of 2008 an order was made on January 20, 2009 permitting the writ petitioners to carry out certain amendments. The order recorded that it would be open to the writ petitioners to apply to the appropriate police authority for posting a picket at the expense of the writ petitioners in accordance with the Police Regulations of Calcutta, 1968. The order further provided that it would be open to the police authorities to consider such application and take appropriate steps. There was, as is clear from the order dated January 20, 2009, no positive direction for the police authorities to do anything.
(3.) A subsequent order was made on February 2, 2009 by which the petition was disposed of. The operative part of the order of February 2, 2009 recorded that it would be open to the writ petitioners to seek police assistance for the purpose of repairing the boundary wall between the passage at premises No.4, N. S. Road and the lane to the north of premises No.8 Lyons Range. The order directed the Officer-in-Charge of Hare Street Police Station to render all assistance to ensure that there was no breach of peace or nothing untoward at the time of repairing the wall.;