Md Salim Salim v. Smritiranjan Mohanty

12.12.2025 DL-04 Ct. No. 236 Srimanta In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side CPAN/721/2025 in WPA/17280/2024 Md. Salim -Vs.- Smt. Bandana Pokhriyal, IAS, The Commissioner/Administrator, Howrah Municipal Corporation Mr. Dhananjay Nayak ...for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandipan Banerjee, Mr. Ankit Sureka ...for the Howrah Municipal Corporation.

1.

The writ petitioner and the alleged contemnor are represented by their respective Counsels. 2.

At the very outset, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the order dated 7.10.2024 as passed by this Court in WPA/17280/2024. It is submitted that though in terms of the said order dated 7.10.2024, a reasoned order dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure-R/16) of the compliance report) was passed by the appropriate authority but such order is violative of the provisions of the relevant Act. It is further submitted that prior to passing of the reasoned order the inspection report has not been provided to the petitioner.

3.

Such contention is vehemently opposed by Mr.

Banerjee, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnor.

4.

On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the Learned Advocates for the contending parties, it reveals that pursuant to the order dated 7.10.2024 as mentioned (supra), the alleged contemnor has passed a reasoned order dated 29.10.2025 which has been duly communicated to the writ petitioner.

5.

In view of such, this Court holds that there was sufficient compliance on the part of the alleged contemnor of the order as passed by this Court. 6.

With the afore-mentioned observation, CPAN/721/2025 is disposed of.

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)