Calcutta High Court
CPAN/1837/2025 of GANAPATI INDUSTRIAL PVT LTD AND ANR Vs HANUMAN PRASAD CHIEF ENGINEER GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE AND ORS on 24 September 2026
Court No.24 pg. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CPAN 1837 of 2025 in WPA 8652 of 2025 Ganpati Industrial Private Limited & Anr. v. Hanuman Prasad & Ors. Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee Mr. Vikas Baisya Mr. Surojit Dasgupta Ms. Ranjana Seal Mr.
24.09.2026
Court No.24
pg.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
CPAN 1837 of 2025
in
WPA 8652 of 2025
Ganpati Industrial Private Limited & Anr.
v.
Hanuman Prasad & Ors.
Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee
Mr. Vikas Baisya
Mr. Surojit Dasgupta
Ms. Ranjana Seal
Mr. Anshanath Chakraborty
… For the petitioners
Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shah
… For the alleged contemnors
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.
1. Affidavit of compliance filed in Court today is taken on record. Affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit of compliance filed on behalf of the petitioners in Court today is also taken on record.
2. Specific submission of the petitioners is that the order of the Court has not been complied with in the manner as was directed.
3. On a perusal of the affidavit of compliance, it appears that inspection was conducted and the goods were found to be defective. Specific stand of the contemnors is that the petitioners are deliberately confusing the sample inspection with the entire inspection process. The inspection revealed that hole diameter is equal to 30 mm against required 25.5 mm as per RDSO drawing, presence of ferules (not permitted as per RDSO drawing). Defects have been found to be fundamental and not minor issues. The materials supplied by the petitioners have been found to be not in conformity with the RDSO drawing.
4. The compliance report also mentions that out of 2295 units, 1038 units are already laid in the track, out of which 86 units have failed prematurely. 444 units have already been replaced by the petitioners. Once the material is laid in the track, it becomes part of the operational infrastructure and the same cannot be removed without disruption. The petitioners’ claim that only 174 units were inspected has been found to be misleading and factually incorrect. Inspection had been conducted across nine lots of articles supplied by the petitioners.
5. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the documents placed before this Court, it appears that the authority did take steps to comply the order passed by the Court. The manner in which compliance has been made may not be as per the satisfaction of the petitioners.
6. The Court is satisfied that the order of the Court has been duly complied with. There is no requirement of proceeding with the contempt application any further. The same stands disposed of.
7. It is, however, made clear that in the event the petitioners have any further grievance, then it will be
open for the petitioners to approach the competent forum for remedy in accordance with law.
8. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
9. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)