Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. Ashok Kumar Deb Chairman Bar Council Of West Bengal
11th July, (AK) 01-02 WPCRC 89 of 2025 in WPA No. 25738 of 2023 in WPA No. 25743 of 2023 with WPCRC 90 of 2025 Sri Sanjay Kumar Sharma Vs.
Sri Ashok Kumar Deb Mr. Ranojoy Chatterjee, ... for the petitioner.
Mr. Kishore Dutta, Mr. Prasun Kumar Dutta, Mr. Ansar Ali Mondal, Mr. Amal Mukherjee, Mr. Hironmoy Bhattacharya Mr. Santanu Mitra Mr. Sanjay Bardhan, Mr. Anit Das Ms. Sabnam De Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu Ms. Sabnam De Ms. Sangeeta roy Mr. Sadhan Halder Mr. Jaladhi Das Ms. M. Ritwike Mr. A. Chowdhury ... for the alleged contemnor.
1.
Insofar as WPCRC 90 of 2025 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although a hearing has been given to the petitioner, no copy of the decision taken thereon has been served on the petitioner.
2.
The matter, in brief, arises out of non-compliance of a direction of this court to the effect that two separate complaints registered against different persons by the petitioner were not being decided on by the Bar Council of West Bengal, for which the present contempt applications were filed and the corresponding Rules were issued.
3.
Learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnor, hands over a copy of the decision taken in respect of WPCRC 90 of 2025 to learned counsel for the petitioner here and now. 4.
Learned Advocate General further submits that he was under the impression that a copy of the decision has already been given to the petitioner. 5.
Be that as it may, since a decision has already been taken, we deem that the contempt in that regard has been purged insofar as WPCRC 90 of 2025 is concerned.
6.
Accordingly, WPCRC 90 of 2025 is discharged and the connected contempt application stands disposed of.
7.
However, insofar as WPCRC 89 of 2025 is concerned, learned Advocate General seeks some time and requests the court to take up the matter later on in the day to explain as to why the alleged contemnor should not be imprisoned and/or
penalized with fine for non-compliance of the order of this court by not deciding the complaint covered by WPCRC 89 of 2025.
8.
Accordingly, let WPCRC 89 of 2025 be postponed for further hearing later in the day.
9.
The matter will next be taken up next at 3.30 p.m. today.
Later (3.30 p.m.)
10. The affidavits-of-apology filed today by the alleged contemnor be kept on record.
11. The learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnor, tenders unqualified apology on behalf of the alleged contemnor verbally as well and submits that there was apparently some communication gap due to which the second complaint was not disposed of.
12. Learned Advocate General seeks ten days' time to purge the contempt by giving a hearing on the complaint of the petitioner and taking a decision thereon.
13. Accordingly, on the prayer of learned Advocate General, the alleged contemnor is granted time for a fortnight to positively take up for hearing and dispose of the pending complaint of the petitioner, from which the present contempt arises, within July 25, 2025.
14. For such limited purpose, the petitioner shall respond to whatever communication or notice is given to the petitioner without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner in the contempt application.
15. It is, however, made clear that the above leave to purge the contempt is being granted on the prayer of the alleged contemnor over and above the penal action to be taken against the alleged contemnor.
16. As such, the question as to whether any penal action shall be taken against the alleged contemnor for the willful and deliberate violation of the order of this court and, if so, the nature of such penal action is kept open for being decided at the final hearing of the Rule.
17. WPCRC 89 of 2025 shall be listed next for hearing on August 8, 2025, on which date the alleged contemnor shall again be present personally at 2 p.m.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)