Calcutta High Court
CPAN/468/2026 of ATINDRANATH CHATTERJEE Vs SUMAN BISWAS, W.B.C.S. EXECUTIVE, SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DURGAPUR on 20 August 2026
Court No.24 SD IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CPAN 468 of 2026 In WPA 19954 of 2025 Atindranath Chatterjee Vs. Suman Biswas & Ors. Mr. Sannidhya Dutta Mr. Anik Kumar Saha … for the petitioner. Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, Ld. AGP Ms. Koyeli
S/L 18
20.08.2026
Court No.24
SD
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CPAN 468 of 2026
In
WPA 19954 of 2025
Atindranath Chatterjee
Vs.
Suman Biswas & Ors.
Mr. Sannidhya Dutta
Mr. Anik Kumar Saha
… for the petitioner.
Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, Ld. AGP
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya
Mr. Suchindram Bhattacharjee
… for the 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 service and the supplementary affidavit filed in Court today be kept with the records.
2. It appears that in purported compliance of the direction passed by this Court, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Durgapur passed an order on November 6, 2025.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has challenged the said order by filing a separate writ petition. The said writ petition is pending consideration till date.
4. Submission of the petitioner is that the Sub- Divisional Magistrate passed the order without giving him any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The notice of hearing which was alleged to be served was received by the petitioner after the hearing was over. The petitioner did not get any opportunity to defend his case. A representation was filed by the petitioner to be taken into consideration by the Sub-Divisional
2 Magistrate at the time of passing the order. The same has also not been considered by the authority.
5. As it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has passed an order which is presently under scrutiny before the competent Court, accordingly, this Court in contempt jurisdiction is not inclined to continue with the contempt application any further.
6. The contempt application stands disposed of.
7. It is made clear that it will be open for the petitioner to raise all issues before the Court taking up the writ petition. None of the issues has been decided by the Court on merits.
8. Parties to act on the basis of the 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 upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)