Swapna Roychowdhury And ORS v. Shyamalendu Mondal D C R Kolkata
In the High Court at Calcutta Special Civil Jurisdiction Appellate Side Contempt 07 14.11.2025 Sc Ct. no.38 Case No. :
CPAN 443 OF 2025 arising out of WPA 12106 OF 2024 In the matter of : Smt. Swapna Roychowdhury & Ors. .... Petitioners VS.
Mr. Shyamalendu Mondal, Deputy Controller (R) Kolkata, District Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Office, Karigori Bhawan, 1st Floor, B-7, Action Area-III, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700 160 .... alleged Contemnor For the Petitioner:
Mr. S. P. Mukherjee Mr. Shuvajit Bose.
....Advocates For the alleged Contemnor:
Mr. Chandi Charan De, Ld. AGP Mr. Anirban Sarkar.
....Advocates Mr. S. P. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appears for the petitioners.
Mr.
Chandi Charan De, learned Additional Government Pleader appears for the alleged contemnor. On the prayer of Mr. S. P. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners time to file exception to the compliance report stands extended till today. The exception filed in the form of affidavit is taken on record.
The order dated November 5, 2024 wherefrom the instant contempt proceeding has arisen has directed the respondent no.4 in the writ petition, contemnor herein, to
communicate the reasoned order to the petitioners within the timeframe mentioned in the order. It was also directed in the order, if the reasoned order goes in favour of the petitioners then, the alleged contemnor and/or any other appropriate State authority to take steps to implement the same.
The compliance report by way of an affidavit affirmed on August 6, 2025 by the alleged contemnor contains the reasoned order dated July 30, 2025. After a long discussion the authority came to a finding that, as there are family disputes amongst the alleged co-sharers of the property, freehold Title Deed could not be executed. Mr. S. P. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relying upon the case made out in the exception, filed by the petitioners, submits that there is no family dispute at all and the authority is simply avoiding to issue the freehold Title Deed. This is the contempt, according to the petitioners.
After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record this Court is of the view that, while adjudicating a proceeding under contempt jurisdiction the Court cannot test the quality or correctness of the reasoned order as in the facts of this case. The contempt court cannot probe into the mental process of the authority when it passed the reasoned order, it will only consider whether the direction of the Court is complied with in its true spirit and effect or not.
On a plain reading of the impugned order dated July 30, 2025 this Court is of the firm view that, it cannot assess its quality or correctness which is questioned by the petitioners.
In view of the foregoing discussions and reasons this Court holds there is no contempt on the part of the alleged contemnor.
Accordingly, CPAN 443 of 2025 stands dropped and closed.
The application, CPAN 443 of 2025 stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
However, this order shall not preclude the petitioners to take steps in accordance with law, if they are aggrieved by the said reasoned order.
(Aniruddha Roy, J.)