The State Of West Bengal And ANR v. Amitava Chatterjee And ORS

06.03.2026 Ct No.11 rrc MAT 426 of 2026 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2026 (The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs.

Amitava Chatterjee & Ors.) Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. Adv. Gen.

Mr. Jayanta Samanta Ms. Srijani Mukherjee ... For the appellants Mr. Biswarrup Biswas Mr. Pradip Kumar Ghosh ..... For the writ petitioner/ respondent no. 1 Mr. Sanjay Saha ..... For the respondent nos. 2 & 3 The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 17th February, 2026 passed by the learned single Judge in a contempt petition being WPCRC 140 of 2025.

Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants submits that the writ petition preferred by Amitava Chatterjee (in short, Amitava) being WPA 20193 of 2024 was disposed of by the learned single Judge considering the earlier judgment delivered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in an appeal being MAT 318 of 2020 and directing the Director of Public Instructions being, the appellant no. 2 herein, to take a decision upon hearing the parties and to communicate the same to the college authorities within a period of two weeks. Alleging non-compliance of the said order, the

contempt application was filed in which initially an order was passed on 5th December, 2025 extending the time to fully comply with the order within a period of eight weeks, as prayed for by the alleged contemnors. In strict compliance of such direction, a reasoned order was passed on 29th January, 2026, i.e., within the time as extended. Such arguments, as advanced, were not taken into consideration and the appellant no. 2 was directed to appear personally.

Mr. Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent no.1, namely, Amitava submits that the appeal itself is not maintainable having been preferred by the State moreso when no order of punishment has been imposed upon the appellant no. 2.

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

By the order impugned, no order of punishment has been imposed upon the alleged contemnor being the appellant no.2. He has been only asked to appear on a particular date and to explain his conduct. The alleged contemnor shall appear before the learned single Judge and explain his conduct detailing the facts, as urged before us by Mr. Dutta.

In view thereof, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the present appeal.

The appeal and the connected application are, accordingly, dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)