Calcutta High Court
CPAN/391/2025 of M/S. S K NATH AND CO AND ANR Vs BIVOR MAJUMDER ASSISTANT ENGINNER MALDA AND ANR on 10 July 2026
High Court at Calcutta Special Civil Jurisdiction Appellate Side Contempt 7 10.7.2026 Sc Ct. no.38 Case No. : CPAN 391 OF 2025 arising out of WPA 14002 OF 2024 In the matter of : M/s. S. K. Nath & Co. & Anr. …. Petitioners VS. Sri Bivor Majumder, Assistant Engineer, (P.W.D.) Malda
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.
In the High Court at Calcutta Special Civil Jurisdiction Appellate Side Contempt
7 10.7.2026
Sc Ct. no.38 Case No. :
CPAN 391 OF 2025
arising out of
WPA 14002 OF 2024
In the matter of : M/s. S. K. Nath & Co. & Anr.
…. Petitioners VS.
Sri Bivor Majumder, Assistant Engineer, (P.W.D.) Malda Sub-Division No.1, Abhirampur Dist – Malda, & Anr.
…. alleged Contemnors
For the Petitioners:
Mr. Apurba Kr. Ghosh Mr. Rudranil Ghosh Ms. Swarupa Sett. ….Advocates For the alleged Contemnor No.1:
Mr. Bipin Ghosh ….Advocate For the alleged Contemnor No.2:
Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya, Ld. AAG Mr. Atanu Basu.
….Advocates
This is a contempt proceeding arising from an order dated December 2, 2024 at page 23 to the contempt application. Mr. Apurba Kr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appears for the petitioners. Mr. Bipin Ghosh, learned Advocate appears for the alleged contemnor no.1.
Mr. Atanu Basu, learned Advocate led by Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya, learned Additional Advocate General appears for the alleged contemnor no.2. A compliance report in the form of affidavit affirmed by the alleged contemnor no.1 on August 11, 2025 shows that, in terms of the direction of this Court an inspection of the alleged unauthorized construction was carried out and the petitioners have attended with other interested parties the said inspection, as would be evident from pages 6 to 11 of the compliance report. Then a reasoned order was passed on July 24, 2025 at page 12 to the said compliance report wherefrom it appears that, the authority came to a specific finding that, there has been no unauthorized encroachment on the land. Mr. Apurba Kr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, while carrying out the inspection two contradictory reports were there, submitted by the jurisdictional BL&LRO. He further submits that, the reasoned order is illegal and was not passed on actual and correct facts. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record it appears to this Court that, the direction of this Court dated December 2, 2024 has been complied with and there is no contempt. The merit, worth or correctness of the reasoned order cannot be adjudicated in the contempt jurisdiction. The Court of Contempt shall only look at whether there has been any deliberate and willful violation of the direction of the Court and not beyond that. In the facts of this case, there has been no violation of the direction of this Court and the direction has been complied with. Accordingly, CPAN 391 of 2025 stands dropped and closed. However, if the petitioners are aggrieved with the reasoned order, they shall be at liberty to take recourse of law, if so permitted and advised. The application, CPAN 391 of 2025 stands disposed of.
(Aniruddha Roy, J.)