Mofidul Biswas v. S Arun Prasad Ias And ORS

In the High Court at Calcutta Special Civil Jurisdiction Appellate Side Contempt 06 14.11.2025 Sc Ct. no.38 Case No. :

CPAN 268 OF 2025 arising out of WPA 25292 OF 2024 In the matter of : Mofidul Biswas .... Petitioner VS.

S. Arun Prasad, I.A.S., District Magistrate and Collector, Nadia & Ors. .... alleged Contemnors For the Petitioner:

Mr. Samiran Giri ....Advocate For the alleged Contemnors:

Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal.

....Advocates Mr. Samiran Giri, learned Advocate appears for the petitioner.

Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Government Advocate appears for the alleged contemnors.

This contempt proceeding has arisen from an order dated November 13, 2024. Under the direction of the Court, the respondent no.7 in the writ petition was directed to provide certain information to the petitioner in terms of its application submitted with relevant records and documents within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order. The order is

available at page 29, Annexure-P2 to the contempt application.

The alleged contemnors have filed a compliance report by way of an affidavit affirmed on July 18, 2025. The compliance report shows that, the direction of this Court has been complied with.

However, the petitioner had opposed the compliance report and filed his affidavit-in-opposition thereto, which was affirmed on July 29, 2025. On perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition it appears to this Court that, the petitioner's complaint is that, the materials were not furnished to the petitioner within the time of four weeks as mentioned in the order but much later than that and more specifically, after filing of the contempt application. Mr. Samiran Giri, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, this itself is an act of contempt.

After considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and on perusal of the materials-onrecord, this Court is of the considered view that, as the direction of this Court has already been complied with substantially even if not within time specified in the order but the material compliance is there and considering the punishment in a contempt proceeding which is grave in nature, this Court finds there is no further requirement to proceed with this contempt proceeding.

Nothing further survives in this contempt proceeding.

Accordingly, CPAN 268 of 2025 stands dropped and closed.

The application, CPAN 268 of 2025 stands disposed of.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)