Dismissed¶25

Aswini Malik v. Tapan Adak and Ors.

Calcutta HC22 Jul 2024MAT/1248/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Aswini Malik v Tapan Adak & Ors., M.A.T. 1248 of 2023 (CAN 1 of 2023), Calcutta High Court, judgment on 22.07.2024, Joymalya Bagchi J. (author) with Gaurang Kanth J. — appeal by Pradhan of Tulsiberia Gram Panchayat, Howrah, against dismissal with Rs.5,000/- cost of his application to recall the Single Bench's order restraining him from the election process; background: 07.10.2021 direction to pass reasoned order on unauthorised construction not complied with till 2022, contempt CPAN 381 of 2022, affidavit of compliance withheld for over ten months, 22.06.2023 election plea; holding: belated compliance gives no justification to set aside the cost; appeal dismissed, CAN 1 of 2023 disposed of, no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed and the cost imposed on the appellant by the Single Bench was not set aside.

Aswini Malik Vs Tapan Adak and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal was dismissed and the cost imposed on the appellant by the Single Bench was not set aside.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the costs imposed upon the appellant, together with the dismissal of his application seeking recall of the Single Bench's restraining order, ought to be waived now that the reasoned order has been passed and the election has ended.

¶19

Court's answer

This court was unable to accede to the appellant's prayer for waiver of costs; the chronology of events showed scant regard by the appellant for the directions of the Hon'ble Single Bench.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Hon'ble Single Bench was compelled to restrain the appellant from campaigning in order to ensure compliance of a court order which had remained unheeded for almost two years.

¶22

Key takeaways

Belated compliance of the order gives no justification to set aside the cost imposed upon the appellant.ratio¶24
In the factual matrix, the appellant ought to consider himself fortunate that the Hon'ble Single Bench did not hold him guilty of contempt.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M.A.T. 1248 of 2023 (CAN 1 of 2023), High Court at Calcutta (Appellate Side), decided 22.07.2024 — Appeal by Aswini Malik, Pradhan of Tulsiberia Gram Panchayat, Howrah, against the Hon'ble Single Bench's dismissal, with imposition of Rs.5,000/- cost, of his application seeking recall of the order restraining him from participating in the election process. An order dated 07.10.2021 had directed the appellant-Pradhan and other Panchayat authorities to deal with respondent no.1/writ petitioner's representation regarding unauthorised construction by inspecting the premises and passing a reasoned order; no reasoned order was passed till 2022, prompting contempt proceeding CPAN 381 of 2022. Although directed on 01.09.2022 to file an affidavit of compliance, the appellant filed none for more than ten months, and on 22.06.2023 pleaded that he was busy in the election process; to secure compliance of directions unheeded for almost two years, the Single Bench restrained him from campaigning. His subsequent recall application was dismissed with costs. Holding: the chronology showed scant regard for the Single Bench's directions, and belated compliance of the order gives no justification to set aside the cost imposed. Appeal dismissed; connected CAN 1 of 2023 disposed of; no order as to costs. Bench: Joymalya Bagchi, J. (author); Gaurang Kanth, J. (agreed).

¶1

Sl. No. 4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

Present:

¶4

The Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi

¶5

And

¶6

The Hon’ble Justice Gaurang Kanth

¶7

M.A.T. 1248 of 2023

¶8

(CAN 1 of 2023)

¶9

Aswini Malik

¶10

-Vs- Tapan Adak&Ors.

¶11

For the Appellant	:	Mr. Aloke Kumar Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, Adv. Ms. Ina Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Mithu Singha Mahapatra, Adv.
For the State	:	Mr. Pankaj Halder, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Heard on	:	22.07.2024
Judgment on	:	22.07.2024

¶12

:- Joymalya Bagchi, J.

¶13

Appellant is the Pradhan of Tulsiberia Gram Panchayat, Howrah.

¶14

By order dated 07.10.2021 the appellant and other Panchayat authorities were directed to deal with the representation of respondent no.1/writ petitioner with regard to unauthorised construction by inspecting the premises in question and to pass a reasoned order in the

¶15

¶16

matter. The order was duly communicated to the appellant-Pradhan but no reasoned order was passed till 2022.

¶17

Under such circumstances, respondent no.1/writ petitioner initiated contempt proceeding being CPAN 381 of 2022. In the contempt proceeding, the Hon’ble Single Bench by order dated 01.09.2022 directed the appellant-Pradhan to submit affidavit of compliance. No affidavit of compliance was filed and on a number of dates. On 22.06.2023 appellant/contemnor was absent and it was submitted on his behalf that he was busy in the election process.

¶18

To ensure compliance of its directions which were long overdue, Hon’ble Single Bench was constrained to restrain the appellant/contemnor from participating in the election process. However, instead of complying with directions, an application for recalling the said order was filed which came to be dismissed with costs which is the subject matter of challenge before us.

¶19

Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the reasoned order has since been passed and placed before the Hon’ble Single Bench. Election has come to an end and therefore, costs imposed upon the appellant be waived.

¶20

We are unable to accede to the prayer of the appellant. The aforesaid chronology of events show scant regard on the part of the appellant to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Single Bench. By order dated 07.10.2021 appellant-Pradhan was directed to take steps in

¶21

¶22

the matter involving unauthorised construction and pass a reasoned order. No reasoned order was passed and contempt proceeding came to be filed in 2022. During hearing of the contempt matter the appellant dragged his feet and affidavit of compliance was not filed for more than ten months. Finally, in June, 2023 a specious plea was taken that the appellant was busy in election campaigning. Finding no other alternative, in order to ensure compliance, Hon’ble Single Bench restrained him from campaigning. Hon’ble Single Bench was compelled to resort to this measure in order to ensure compliance of a court order which had remained unheeded to for almost two years.

¶23

Even thereafter the affidavit of compliance was not filed but the appellant took an obstructive course by seeking recall of the aforesaid order. Under such circumstances, application for recall came to be dismissed and cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed upon the appellant.

¶24

In this factual matrix, appellant ought to consider himself lucky that the Hon’ble Single Bench did not hold him guilty of contempt. Belated compliance of the order gives no justification to set aside the cost imposed upon him.

¶25