Smartspace Infrastructure Private Limited And ORS v. Kamaleshwar Rao

Item No-01 21.03.2025 AK/TN Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Port Blair Appellate Side From Principal Bench CPAN No. 55 of 2024 Smartspace Infrastructure Private Limited and others Vs.

Kamaleshwar Rao Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, Ld. Sr. Adv., Ms. Rajshree Kajaria, Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar, Mr. Uttam Sharma, Mr. Ajay Majhi .... for the petitioners Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi, Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Ms. Sonia Das .... for the alleged contemnor 1.

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as learned senior counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor.

2.

We find from the judgment and order dated June 24, 2024 passed by this Bench that we had affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge which was assailed in the appeal before us and had directed the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned to dispose of all the applications of the writ

petitioners within a further period of six weeks from that date.

3.

Subsequently, although not within the said time, the Sub-Divisional Officer has passed a reasoned order dated January 06, 2025 on the applications of the writ petitioners (who are the applicants before us).

4.

The petitioners contend that the Sub-Divisional Officer was passing mechanical orders rejecting such applications, for which the petitioners sought for some time to appear before the SubDivisional Officer. 5.

However, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an ex parte order, thereby rejecting the petitioners' applications on grounds which are not only contrary to the observations made by us in the parent order under contempt but also contrary to the records of the authorities themselves.

6.

However, we find that the observations made by us in the parent order, which is under contempt, were in the context of whether the order of the learned Single Judge was valid and the reference made to the Sub-Divisional Officer was tenable in the eye of law. In fact, we could not have prejudged the issues which were to be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer, since such an exercise

would render the reference of the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer meaningless.

7.

Hence, the expression "in the light of the above observations" used in our order dated June 24, 2024, can only be construed to refer to the context of the challenge before us and would pertain to whether the Sub-Divisional Officer was required to decide the applications of the writ petitioners.

8.

In effect, we affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge, by which the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to dispose of the respective applications of the writ petitioners.

9.

Since a decision has been taken on the said applications of the writ petitioners by the SubDivisional Officer in substantial compliance of our order and the order of the learned Single Judge on January 06, 2025, and keeping in view that the recourse of assailing the order dated January 06, 2025 on merits by a properly constituted challenge is available in law to the present applicants, in our opinion, it would be beyond the contempt jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and, as such, we find that no case of contempt has been made out.

10. Accordingly, CPAN 55 of 2024 is dismissed on contest without, however, any order as to costs.

11. It is made clear that nothing in this order shall preclude the applicants from preferring a properly constituted challenge before the appropriate forum against the order of the SubDivisional Officer. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)