High Court Division :
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Md Ashfaqul Islam J
And Justice Kashefa
Hussain J
Judgment
May 19th, 2015.
Proshad Chandra
Biswas Petitioner
vs
Md Moklesur Rahman
Bhuiyan and others …..
…….. Contemners-
Respondents
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 108
The apology that has been tendered by the contemner No.2, has come from his pen and not from his heart. This gentleman certainly had indulged in excesses in not implementing the positive direction of this Division which was clear and unambiguous. This executive fiat is detestable, atrocious and outrageous. We term it as a flagrant manifestation of a perverted ego. We reprimand this act of highhandedness seriously and severely. We caution that in future if he repeats this sort of behaviour, he shall have to face a dire consequence. In our magnanimity we are exonerating him on this occasion. He must remember that we are simply sparing him but without placating our feeling against him. . ….. (12)
Montu Ghose, Advocate-For the Petitioner
Manzill Murshid, Advocate-For Respondent-Contemners.
Judgment
Md Ashfaqul Islam J: At the instance of the petitioner, Proshad Chandra Biswas, this Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the contemner respondents to show cause as to why the proceedings for contempt of Court shall not be drawn against them for violating the judgment and order dated 29-1-2012 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 617 of 2012 and why they will not be punished for committing contempt of Court.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of the Rule, are that the petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No. 617 of 2012 impleading the contemners-respondents. A Division Bench of the High Court Division by the judgment and order dated 29-1-2012 was pleased to direct till’ respondents (respondent No. 1-4 of the writ petition) to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 22-12-2011 in accordance with law and rule within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.
3. The notice of the aforesaid writ petition was duly served upon the respondents through office on 19-2-2012 and thereafter the petitioner also personally informed the respondents about the order and direction dated 29-1-2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 617 of 2012. On 4-3-2012 the respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka asked the petitioner to come on the next day along with relevant documents and as per the advice of respondent No.2 on 5-3-2012 the petitioner went to his office and submitted the relevant documents identifying himself as Prashad Chandra Biswas but the respondents conspiring with the vested quarter, with a view to frustrate the direction of the High Court Division passed in Writ Petition No. 617 of 2012 without complying with the Courts order or without disposing of the application of the petitioner in accordance with applicable law, with a false plea filed a FIR with the Kotwali Police Station being No.6 dated 6-3-2012 against the petitioner alleging that he is not the original Prashad Chandra Biswas though the petitioner submitted all relevant documents identifying himself as Prashad Chandra Biswas.
4. It has been also stated that in case of any suspicion the respondent can hold an enquiry to ascertain the identity of the person but the respondents without holding any such inquiry· ‘have filed the aforesaid case being Kotwali Police Station Case No. 6 dated 6-3-2012 and handed over the petitioner to the law enforcing agency in connection with the above mentioned case and consequently the petitioner was sent to jail custody and the petitioner after obtaining bail submitted a representation dated 2-5-2012 to the respondent No.2 intimating him about the order dated 29-1-2012 passed in Writ Petition No.617 of 2012 and requested the respondents to comply with the said order dated 29-1-2012 but without any result.
5. The petitioner thereafter sent notice demanding justice upon the respondents and the respondents having receipt of the notice did not implement the decision of this Division and hence is this petition for contempt of Court.
6. Mr Montu Chose, the learned counsel appearing for the contempt-petitioner after placing the petition, operative part of the writ petition No, 617 of 2012 mainly submits that even after receiving the notice of the contempt Rule, respondents willfully and deliberately violated the court’s order and as such they are liable to be proceeded for contempt of court. The learned counsel further submits that on being approached by the petitioner to implement the order of this Division the respondent No. 2 Mr Md Mohibul Hoque former Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka at present Additional Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka instructed the Additional land Accusation Officer to lodge an FIR against the petitioner and also to handover the petitioner to the police in connection with the said case and thereby deliberately and willfully disobeyed and disregarded the order of this Division and committed contempt of court. He also elaborates his contention that as per Article 112 of the Constitution all authorities, executives and judiciary in the Republic shall act in the aid of the Supreme Court hence the contemner-respondents are duty-bound to comply with the order of this Division and without complying with the same they committed contempt of Court.
7. By filing affidavit of compliance Mr Md Tofazzal Hossain Miah, the added contemner No.6, at present Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka has drawn our attention to Annexure-4 and 5 series of the same. From where we have found that on 22-1-2015 the direction of this Division passed in writ petition No. 617 of 2012 was finally implemented.
8. That being the position, Mr Montu Chose, the learned counsel for the contempt-petitioner vehemently submits that he has no allegation against the present Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka the added respondent-contemner No.6 Mr Md Tofazzal Hossain Miah as he has implemented the decision of Writ Petition No. 617 of 2012 in its true spirit but the former Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka respondent No.2 Mr Md Mohibul Hoque at present Additional Secretary has shown a great disrespect defying to implement the mandamus of this Division. He submits that this disobedience on the part of the contemner No. 2 Mr Md Mohibul Haque is deliberate and willful and certainly to malign, the dignity, prestige and honour of this Division which goes without saying.
9. On the other hand, Mr Manzill Murshid, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 Mr Md Mohibul Haque, at present Additional Secretary by filing supplementary affidavit dated 19-5-2015 stated that the petitioner submitted the copy of Mohanagar Khatian in support of his claim ,which is forged, because the property was recorded in the name of BRAC in Mohanagar Jarip. Due to his forged document he was sent to jail custody and in order to take revenge the petitioner filed the instant contempt petition. It is stated that the steps were already been taken to dispose of the application dated 22-12-2011 as per the direction of this Court. That on 9-5-2012 the contemner respondent No.2 sent a letter to the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhaka, asking him to take steps as per the direction passed in Writ Petition No. 617 of 2012. Thereafter on 28-6-2012 Land Acquisition Officer, Dhaka gave decision on the application filed by the petitioner, in which it was stated that there is no scope to pay compensation. So, the question of disregarding or disobeying the High Court’s order as alleged does not arise and contemner-respondent No.2 may not be blamed for noncompliance of the order of the High Court Division.
10. We have heard the learned counsel of both the sides, perused the petition, affidavit in opposition at length and considered their submissions with precision.
11. The liability of committing contempt of Court is absolutely independent liability i.e. the liability upon the person who has committed contempt of Court. For that reason all the respondent-contemners who were in charge of the respective department time to time are relevant for the purpose of deciding who should be held liable for committing the offence as alleged. From the record and submissions of the learned counsel of the petitioner, we are convinced that the present Deputy Commissioner who is the added contemner No.6 on 22-1-2015 finally implemented the decision of this Court and for that reason he has committed no contempt of Court. Under the circumstances he has nothing more to do. But as we have mentioned that liability is independent one, we have to take notice of the steps that were taken by the contemner No.2 in this perspective. Mr Manzill Murshid has brought to our notice as we have already stated’ above that the contemner respondent No.2 took some steps till his transfer on 5-11-2012. There was a delay which was unintentional and for that he rendered unconditional apology for the act done by him.
12. One thing we want to observe that the apology that has been tendered by the contemner No.2, Md Mohibul Haque though has come from his pen but not from his heart. This gentleman certainly had indulged in excesses in not implementing the positive direction of this Division which was clear and unambiguous. This executive fiat is detestable, atrocious and outrageous. We term it as a flagrant manifestation of a perverted ego. We reprimand this act of highhandedness seriously and severely. We caution that in future if he repeats this sort of behaviour, he shall have to face a dire consequence. In our magnanimity we are exonerating him on this occasion. He must remember that we are simply sparing him but without placating our feeling against him.
13. With these observations and by recording our disapproval as aforesaid this contempt petition is disposed of.
14. The respondents-contemners are exonerated from the liability of contempt of Court.
15. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to contemner No. 2 Md Mohibul Haque, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka.
Communicate at once.
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Md Ashfaqul Islam J
And Justice Kashefa
Hussain J
Judgment
May 19th, 2015.
Proshad Chandra
Biswas Petitioner
vs
Md Moklesur Rahman
Bhuiyan and others …..
…….. Contemners-
Respondents
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 108
The apology that has been tendered by the contemner No.2, has come from his pen and not from his heart. This gentleman certainly had indulged in excesses in not implementing the positive direction of this Division which was clear and unambiguous. This executive fiat is detestable, atrocious and outrageous. We term it as a flagrant manifestation of a perverted ego. We reprimand this act of highhandedness seriously and severely. We caution that in future if he repeats this sort of behaviour, he shall have to face a dire consequence. In our magnanimity we are exonerating him on this occasion. He must remember that we are simply sparing him but without placating our feeling against him. . ….. (12)
Montu Ghose, Advocate-For the Petitioner
Manzill Murshid, Advocate-For Respondent-Contemners.
Judgment
Md Ashfaqul Islam J: At the instance of the petitioner, Proshad Chandra Biswas, this Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the contemner respondents to show cause as to why the proceedings for contempt of Court shall not be drawn against them for violating the judgment and order dated 29-1-2012 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 617 of 2012 and why they will not be punished for committing contempt of Court.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of the Rule, are that the petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No. 617 of 2012 impleading the contemners-respondents. A Division Bench of the High Court Division by the judgment and order dated 29-1-2012 was pleased to direct till’ respondents (respondent No. 1-4 of the writ petition) to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 22-12-2011 in accordance with law and rule within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.
3. The notice of the aforesaid writ petition was duly served upon the respondents through office on 19-2-2012 and thereafter the petitioner also personally informed the respondents about the order and direction dated 29-1-2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 617 of 2012. On 4-3-2012 the respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka asked the petitioner to come on the next day along with relevant documents and as per the advice of respondent No.2 on 5-3-2012 the petitioner went to his office and submitted the relevant documents identifying himself as Prashad Chandra Biswas but the respondents conspiring with the vested quarter, with a view to frustrate the direction of the High Court Division passed in Writ Petition No. 617 of 2012 without complying with the Courts order or without disposing of the application of the petitioner in accordance with applicable law, with a false plea filed a FIR with the Kotwali Police Station being No.6 dated 6-3-2012 against the petitioner alleging that he is not the original Prashad Chandra Biswas though the petitioner submitted all relevant documents identifying himself as Prashad Chandra Biswas.
4. It has been also stated that in case of any suspicion the respondent can hold an enquiry to ascertain the identity of the person but the respondents without holding any such inquiry· ‘have filed the aforesaid case being Kotwali Police Station Case No. 6 dated 6-3-2012 and handed over the petitioner to the law enforcing agency in connection with the above mentioned case and consequently the petitioner was sent to jail custody and the petitioner after obtaining bail submitted a representation dated 2-5-2012 to the respondent No.2 intimating him about the order dated 29-1-2012 passed in Writ Petition No.617 of 2012 and requested the respondents to comply with the said order dated 29-1-2012 but without any result.
5. The petitioner thereafter sent notice demanding justice upon the respondents and the respondents having receipt of the notice did not implement the decision of this Division and hence is this petition for contempt of Court.
6. Mr Montu Chose, the learned counsel appearing for the contempt-petitioner after placing the petition, operative part of the writ petition No, 617 of 2012 mainly submits that even after receiving the notice of the contempt Rule, respondents willfully and deliberately violated the court’s order and as such they are liable to be proceeded for contempt of court. The learned counsel further submits that on being approached by the petitioner to implement the order of this Division the respondent No. 2 Mr Md Mohibul Hoque former Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka at present Additional Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka instructed the Additional land Accusation Officer to lodge an FIR against the petitioner and also to handover the petitioner to the police in connection with the said case and thereby deliberately and willfully disobeyed and disregarded the order of this Division and committed contempt of court. He also elaborates his contention that as per Article 112 of the Constitution all authorities, executives and judiciary in the Republic shall act in the aid of the Supreme Court hence the contemner-respondents are duty-bound to comply with the order of this Division and without complying with the same they committed contempt of Court.
7. By filing affidavit of compliance Mr Md Tofazzal Hossain Miah, the added contemner No.6, at present Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka has drawn our attention to Annexure-4 and 5 series of the same. From where we have found that on 22-1-2015 the direction of this Division passed in writ petition No. 617 of 2012 was finally implemented.
8. That being the position, Mr Montu Chose, the learned counsel for the contempt-petitioner vehemently submits that he has no allegation against the present Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka the added respondent-contemner No.6 Mr Md Tofazzal Hossain Miah as he has implemented the decision of Writ Petition No. 617 of 2012 in its true spirit but the former Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka respondent No.2 Mr Md Mohibul Hoque at present Additional Secretary has shown a great disrespect defying to implement the mandamus of this Division. He submits that this disobedience on the part of the contemner No. 2 Mr Md Mohibul Haque is deliberate and willful and certainly to malign, the dignity, prestige and honour of this Division which goes without saying.
9. On the other hand, Mr Manzill Murshid, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 Mr Md Mohibul Haque, at present Additional Secretary by filing supplementary affidavit dated 19-5-2015 stated that the petitioner submitted the copy of Mohanagar Khatian in support of his claim ,which is forged, because the property was recorded in the name of BRAC in Mohanagar Jarip. Due to his forged document he was sent to jail custody and in order to take revenge the petitioner filed the instant contempt petition. It is stated that the steps were already been taken to dispose of the application dated 22-12-2011 as per the direction of this Court. That on 9-5-2012 the contemner respondent No.2 sent a letter to the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhaka, asking him to take steps as per the direction passed in Writ Petition No. 617 of 2012. Thereafter on 28-6-2012 Land Acquisition Officer, Dhaka gave decision on the application filed by the petitioner, in which it was stated that there is no scope to pay compensation. So, the question of disregarding or disobeying the High Court’s order as alleged does not arise and contemner-respondent No.2 may not be blamed for noncompliance of the order of the High Court Division.
10. We have heard the learned counsel of both the sides, perused the petition, affidavit in opposition at length and considered their submissions with precision.
11. The liability of committing contempt of Court is absolutely independent liability i.e. the liability upon the person who has committed contempt of Court. For that reason all the respondent-contemners who were in charge of the respective department time to time are relevant for the purpose of deciding who should be held liable for committing the offence as alleged. From the record and submissions of the learned counsel of the petitioner, we are convinced that the present Deputy Commissioner who is the added contemner No.6 on 22-1-2015 finally implemented the decision of this Court and for that reason he has committed no contempt of Court. Under the circumstances he has nothing more to do. But as we have mentioned that liability is independent one, we have to take notice of the steps that were taken by the contemner No.2 in this perspective. Mr Manzill Murshid has brought to our notice as we have already stated’ above that the contemner respondent No.2 took some steps till his transfer on 5-11-2012. There was a delay which was unintentional and for that he rendered unconditional apology for the act done by him.
12. One thing we want to observe that the apology that has been tendered by the contemner No.2, Md Mohibul Haque though has come from his pen but not from his heart. This gentleman certainly had indulged in excesses in not implementing the positive direction of this Division which was clear and unambiguous. This executive fiat is detestable, atrocious and outrageous. We term it as a flagrant manifestation of a perverted ego. We reprimand this act of highhandedness seriously and severely. We caution that in future if he repeats this sort of behaviour, he shall have to face a dire consequence. In our magnanimity we are exonerating him on this occasion. He must remember that we are simply sparing him but without placating our feeling against him.
13. With these observations and by recording our disapproval as aforesaid this contempt petition is disposed of.
14. The respondents-contemners are exonerated from the liability of contempt of Court.
15. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to contemner No. 2 Md Mohibul Haque, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka.
Communicate at once.
