Joydeb Ghosh v. Sajjad Siddiqui Secretary West Bengalmadrasah Service Commission

Court No. 2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.P.A.N. 67 of 2024 in W.P.A. 2714 of 2009 Joydeb Ghosh VS Sajjad Siddiqui, The Secretary West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission.

Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das Ms. Poulami Dutta ..... for the petitioner Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee Ms. Madhurima Sarkar .... For alleged contemnor This is a hearing of contempt petition upon 17.5.2024 (Item No. 6) (AB) affidavits.

This is a contempt proceeding arising from an order dated June 5, 2023 passed by this Court, annexure P-1 at page 18 to the contempt application. On the prayer of Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor, time to file affidavit-in-opposition stands extended till today. The affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on April 16, 2024 filed in Court today is taken on record. Identically by extending the time, affidavit-inreply on behalf of the petitioner affirmed on May 13, 2024 is also taken on record.

The alleged contemnor through its affidavit-inopposition has disclosed the reasoned order dated February 27, 2024.

Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner referring to the said reasoned order submits that, while passing the same the alleged contemnor had not taken into consideration the document dated June 10, 2009 as

mentioned in the said order dated June 5, 2023. He has also pleaded the case in his affidavit-in-reply. On perusal of the said reasoned order it appears to this Court that, while considering the case of the petitioner the alleged contemnor has passed the reasoned order following the direction of the Court. The law is well settled that, whether the materials are rightly or wrongly considered by the authority while passing the reasoned order cannot be an issue before a Court of contempt. A Court of contempt with its limited jurisdiction will examine whether there is any willful or deliberate violation of the direction of the Court. If there is any misunderstanding or misconstruction of law or application of any material, while passing the reasoned order, the same cannot be taken into consideration by a Court of contempt. A Court while exercising its power under contempt jurisdiction shall examine whether there is compliance of its direction and no deliberate violation thereof.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that, there is no act of contempt on the part of the alleged contemnor in the instant case. It is made clear that, this Court has not gone into the merits of the said reasoned order in any manner.

With the above observations and directions, this contempt proceeding being C.P.A.N. 67 of 2024 stands dropped and closed.

The application being C.P.A.N. 67 of 2024 stands dismissed.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)