Cont.Cas(C)/251/2026 of MOHAN GOGOI Vs SANJAY SINGHAL (IPS) AND ANR on 5 October 2026

ORDER

06.10.2026 Heard Shri S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, who by means of

this contempt petition has alleged willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by this Court in WP(C)/ 6757/2025. On 18.05.2026, notice was issued in this case, pursuant to which Shri SS Roy, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 1. Shri Roy, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has however submitted that the present petition filed for contempt is totally misconceived. Shri Roy, learned counsel, by drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by this Court in WP(C)/6757/2025, has submitted that as a matter of fact, the writ petition was dismissed and only an observation was made that if a representation was filed before the Review Medical Board seeking reconsideration, the same may be considered in accordance with law. He has submitted that in terms of the said observation, a representation was indeed filed by the petitioner which however was duly considered by the Review Medical Board and in that regard, a communication has been issued on 20.03.2026 which has been enclosed to the contempt petition itself. He submits that under those circumstances, it cannot be construed that there has been any deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Court. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds force in the contention advanced by Shri Roy, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that the writ petition instituted by the petitioner was in fact dismissed and in pursuance to the observation of consideration of a representation, the same clearly appears to have been done and communicated, vide an order dated 20.03.2026. Though this Court would not make any comment on the legality / correctness of the said communication which is otherwise not the subject matter of challenge, the order of this Court clearly appears to be complied with.

In that view of the matter, the instant contempt petition clearly appears to be a misconceived one and accordingly, the same is closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant