← Library
Calcutta High CourtWPA/20024/2009disposed

Basanti Bagdi v. State Of West Bengal & ORS

2020-03-02Hon'Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj2 pages

Form of Rule Nisi (Contempt) (Form No.1) CPAN 1585 of 2011 in WPA No. 20024 of 2009 No.37 HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Appellate Side (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction) District : Bankura In the matter of :

Basanti Bagdi ...Applicant

Versus

Sreemonto Ghosh & Ors.

....contemnors/opposite parties For Applicant: Mr. Zakir Hossain For alleged contemnors Nos. 3 & 6: Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay Ms. Iti Dutta Noting by Officer or Advocate Serial No.

Date Office notes, reports, orders or proceedings with signatures 05.

06.01.2023 UPON READING a petition of Basanti Bagdi and the affidavit of verification thereof, dated 9th December, 2011 and the annexures to the said petition and upon hearing Mr. Zakir Hossain, learned Advocate for the Applicant.

IT IS ORDERED that a Rule do issue calling upon the alleged contemnor No. 4, namely, Arup Biswas, The Secretary /Headmaster of Managing Committee of Mangalchandi High School Village-Khosalpur, Post- Parulia, P.S. Patrasayar, District- Bankura, and alleged contemnor No. 5 Sri Prasanna Ghosh, the President, of the Managing Committee of Mangalchandi High School, Village-Khosalpur, Post- Parulia, P.S. Patrasayar, District- Bankura, as mentioned in the contempt application (CPAN 1585 of 2011) to show cause why they should not be held guilty of contempt of Court and be sent them to prison or otherwise penalized or dealt with for having wilfully and deliberately violated the order dated May, 11, 2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta on WPA No. 20024 of 2009.

The Rule is made returnable on February 10, 2023. On the returnable date, IT IS ORDERED the alleged contemnor Nos.4 and 5 aforesaid shall appear personally before this Court at 10.30 a.m. and shall not leave the Court without permission. The applicant is directed to put in special messenger cost by January

11, 2023 in the department for serving Rule upon the aforesaid contemnors.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pendency of this Rule shall not preclude the alleged contemnor Nos.4 & 5 to comply with the order dated May 11, 2011.

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)