Santanu Panda And ANR v. Souvik Bhattacharjee Sdo Contai And ANR

06.03.2026 In The High Court at Calcutta Ct. No. 38 Special Civil Jurisdiction Sl. No. 7 Appellate Side Moumita CPAN 1403 of 2025 in WPA 9734 of 2024 Santanu Panda & Anr.

-Vs.- Souvik Bhattacharjee, Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai, Dist- Purba Medinipur & Anr.

Mr. Sankar Prasad Dalapati Mr. Pritam Chowdhury Mr. Sourav Mondal ....For the Petitioners Mr. Suddadev Adak Ms. Richa Pramanik ....For the Alleged Contemnors Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today is taken on record.

Mr. Pritam Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.

Mr.

Suddadev Adak, learned advocate appearing for the alleged contemnors submit a reasoned order dated January 28, 2026 along with a bunch of documents passed by the alleged contemnor no. 1 in exercise of its power under SubSection 3 to Section 10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964. He further informs this Court that the said order has been carried into appeal by the private respondents in the writ petition being the alleged encroachers under Sub-Section 4 to Section 10 of 1964 Act. The appeal is pending.

Mr. Pritam Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in such situation also the contempt survives as the demolition has not taken place, despite finding being arrived at the Sub-Section 3 stage that encroachment is there on PWD land.

After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this Court that, since the reasoned order dated January 28, 2026 has been passed by the alleged contemnor no. 1 in exercise of its power under Sub-Section 3 to Section 10 of 1964 Act, the direction of this Court has been complied with. The fate of the said reasoned order now depends on the result of the appeal preferred therefrom under Sub-Section 4 to Section 10 of 1964 Act. This situation cannot be looked into by this Court, in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction. Further submission of Mr.

Pritam Chowdhury, learned advocate is that Sub-Section 3 to Section 10 of 1964 Act has two parts the first part is to pass the order and the second part, if encroachment is there, to demolish, that is, execution of the order.

Since appeal is pending the question of execution at this stage does not arise.

However, the appellate authority shall decide and come to its logical conclusion on the pending appeal expeditiously.

In view of the above, there is no contempt on the part of the alleged contemnors.

However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits and correctness of the reasoned order dated January 28, 2026.

Accordingly, this contempt proceeding CPAN 1403 of 2025 stands dropped and closed.

The application CPAN 1403 of 2025 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)