Calcutta High Court
CPAN/1934/2025 of BIKASH MAHESH AND ANR Vs DHUMAL PRATIK ASHOK SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER CONTAI SUB DIVISION on 9 October 2026
High Court at Calcutta Ct. No. 38 Special Civil Jurisdiction Sl. No. 10 Appellate Side Contempt Moumita CPAN 1934 of 2025 in WPA 21815 of 2023 Bikas Mahesh & Anr. Vs. Dhumal Pratik Ashok, The Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai Sub-Division, Purba Medinipur Mr. Anindya Sundar Das, Adv. Mr. Shaunak
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
09.10.2026
In The High Court at Calcutta Ct. No. 38
Special Civil Jurisdiction Sl. No. 10
Appellate Side Contempt Moumita
CPAN 1934 of 2025 in WPA 21815 of 2023
Bikas Mahesh & Anr. Vs. Dhumal Pratik Ashok, The Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai Sub-Division, Purba Medinipur Mr. Anindya Sundar Das, Adv. Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Paramita Mondal, Adv. Mr. Suman Halder, Adv. ……...For the Petitioners Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Ld. Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Joy Ranjan Dhar, Adv.
….For the alleged contemnor
Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today, is taken on record.
Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, learned Advocate appears for the petitioners.
Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty, learned Advocate led by Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears for the alleged contemnor.
Learned Advocate for the alleged contemnor has filed a report dated July 20, 2026 issued under the signature of the alleged contemnor, the same is taken on record. Copy has been served upon the learned Advocate for the petitioner in
2 Court today. The report shows that the alleged contemnor has passed its order.
This court has not expressed any opinion on the correctness, tenor or worthiness of the order passed by the alleged contemnor, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the same, if so advised, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, since compliance has been made, the contempt proceeding CPAN 1934 of 2025 stands dropped and closed.
The application CPAN 1934 of 2025 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.
(Aniruddha Roy, J.)