Shri.V.K.M.Mohammed Miskin v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.
07.03.2025 Court No.13 Item No. 1 pk
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR CPAN 1 of 2025 In M.A.T. 62 of 2024 Shri V.K.M. Mohammed Miskin Vs.
Shri Thomas Varghese Mr. Arul Prasanth (Through V.C.) ... for the appellant Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, (Through V.C.) Mr. Rakesh Kumar (Through V.C.) Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the alleged contemnor 1.
It appears that although Tehsildar, Port Blair was specifically directed to demolish the unauthorized construction admittedly found by him and by this Court in its order dated 07.11.2024 passed in MAT 62 of 2024 (Shri V.K.M. Mohammed Miskin Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others), the Tehsildar, Port Blair has passed an order dated 15.02.2025 under Section 202 of the Andaman and Nicobar Island Revenue and Reforms Regulation Act, 1966. By reason thereof, the private respondent has been given opportunity to institute fresh proceeding to challenge the order of demolition and demarcation. 2.
In the first place, demarcation was already determined and found conclusive by this Court.
There was no question of any further demarcation being conducted by the Tehsildar, Port Blair. The private respondent, now seized with an opportunity under Section 202 of the Andaman and Nicobar Island Revenue and Reforms Regulation Act, 1966 issued a notice to the Tehsildar, Port Blair for institution of civil proceedings.
3.
Not being satisfied, he filed a writ petition before the Single Bench of this Court in Circuit at Andaman and Nicobar Island being W.P.A. 98 of 2025 seeking injunction against the Tehsildar, Port Blair. As to how the writ petition was entertained during the pendency of this contempt proceeding, and without the leave of this Court, is surprising. When injunction was refused, an appeal was preferred being M.A.T. No. 22 of 2025. In an interim application being I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025 in the said appeal, a Co-ordinate Bench has restrained the Tehsildar, Port Blair from taking any coercive steps against the private respondent.
4.
This Court is of the clear and unequivocal view that W.P.A. No. 98 of 2025 and M.A.T. No. 22 of 2025 are in gross abuse of process of law. There is also an indirect attempt to frustrate orders of this Court and these contempt proceedings. The private respondent has slyly and dubiously dishonestly and contumaciously pitted one Division Bench against
another Division Bench. An anomalous situation has arisen and a paradox is unfolded.
5.
This Court sitting in contempt jurisdiction cannot be restrained by any other Co-ordinate Bench in exercise of its powers. The main culprit is the private respondent in this proceeding being the writ petitioner in W.P.A. No. 98 of 2025.
6.
This Court is, therefore, inclined to issue a suo motu rule of contempt against the private respondent, namely, Shri Anoop Singh.
The contumacious conduct is in the nature of criminal contempt. Let a rule be issued against Shri Anoop Singh and the same is made returnable on 19th March, 2025 at 2:00 P.M. when this Bench will reconvene.
7.
Registry at Port Blair shall ensure due service of the Rule on the private respondent.
8.
Tehsildar, Port Blair is personally present in Court. His presence is dispensed with for the day on the undertaking that he shall be virtually present before this Court also on the adjourned date. The complicity of the Tehsildar, Port Blair in facilitating the anomalous situation above in facilitating the private respondent to institute proceedings that militate against the present proceedings cannot be ruled out.
9.
List the matter on 19th March, 2025 at 2:00 P.M. under the same heading.
10. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)