High Court finds 4 South officials in ‘clear and serious’ contempt, chastises them

GANGTOK, 05 Dec: The Sikkim High Court has disposed contempt proceedings initiated against four officials of the South District – the DM, SDM [Namchi], SDPO [Jorethang] and OC Melli Police Station - in the case concerning the sealing of the house of Nuk Tshering Bhutia, also known as “Melli Sonam”. The proceedings were disposed of after the DM [South] opened the sealed property. The Court did however note that a “clear and serious” case of contempt had been committed by the officials.

In fact, Acting Chief Justice SP Wangdi, while disposing the proceedings, noted that the contemnors, particularly the DM South and Namchi SDM, were young officers with a long career ahead of them.  The Court was faced with a question of whether to punish the contemnors by “…relegating them to the only place that they deserve to be in, i.e., the State Jail? Or should the court take an alternative route which would serve both the end of maintaining the dignity of the court and retaining the faith of the citizens in the justice delivery system, and, the delinquents well chastised so that they do not repeat such excess in times to come?”
This is what the Court has noted in its order.
In the event, the Court took the alternative route permissible which was to take the lenient course of granting an injunction in the mandatory form and ensure compliance of the orders that had been passed or circumvented.
The Court noted that an “extraordinary and unusual” course of action was taken by the respondents, that is, the contemnors. When the order for eviction issued by the DM, dated 11 October, 2011, expired on the midnight of 10 November, steps to execute the order, that is, of sealing, were initiated the very next day at 8 a.m.
The petitioner then moved the High Court at 11 a.m. the same day. The Court notes that “…the tearing hurry in which the entire exercise has been undertaken by the respondents, so much so even the wife and maid servant of the petitioner were locked in the questioned building, clearly and without any doubt indicates that it has done to circumvent and over-reach the impending action of this Court.”
The process of sealing the building started at around 10 a.m. and finished at 11 a.m. on 11 November as averred by the respondents. The same morning the High Court had issued a stay order on the eviction notice, but this, the respondents claimed, was received by them some minutes after the sealing had been completed.
What further led the Court to believe that there was an attitude of defiance on the part of the respondents is the fact that the next day, the sealing was removed to allow the wife and maid servant of the petitioner to be released from the house after which the building was sealed again.
The High Court was also informed that the DM South, in consideration of the order of the Appellate Authority, whom Melli Sonam had approached challenging the eviction order of the DM South, had taken a suo moto decision under the illegal action and unseal the building.
The Acting Chief Justice also noted that it was made amply clear by the order of the Appellate Authority that the DM had no jurisdiction in exercising his power under Section 9(1) of Sikkim Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants & Rent Recovery) Act, 1980 and in issuing the eviction order.
In view of the unsealing of the property, the High Court did not find it necessary to pass a mandatory injunction.  No further orders were passed as it was observed that the situation as regards the building had been brought to the position of status quo ante as on 11 November, 2011 and that the petitioner had been provided the opportunity by the appellate authority to approach the competent court of law for remedy.