Subrata Natta v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

6-7 28.08.2025 Asr.

In The High Court At Calcutta Special Civil Jurisdiction Appellate Side CPAN 1018 of 2025 in WPA 25880 of 2022 Debtosh Natta Vs.

Prof. (DR) Nimai Chandra Saha With CPAN 1735 of 2024 In WPA 25884 of 2022 Subrata Natta Vs.

Prof. (Dr) Nimai Chandra Saha Director of Public Inspection Govt. of W. B.

Mr. Rudranil De, Mr. Soumo Charan.

Mr. Anubhav Samanta ..... for the petitioner.

Mr. Somnath Ganguli Mr. Jayanta Samanta Ms. Ujani Pal (Samanta) ....For the State Mr. Jayanta Samanta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnors submits that the affidavit has prepared and sent for verification but it was not received yet, for which he seeks accommodation for a few days to file the affidavit against the application for contempt. Mr. Samanta further submits that Dr. Madhumita Manna has recently appointed as Director of Public Instruction, Government of West Bengal and earlier

contemnor namely Dr. Nirmal Chandra Saha has left the post.

Considering the situation petitioner is directed to add the name of Dr. Madhumita Manna, as the alleged contemnor.

It appears that the instant contempt application is filed for alleged deliberate violation and non-compliance of order of this court dated 24.6.2024. By such order this court has directed the authority to take appropriate decision within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Order has been duly communicated to the alleged contemnor but since more than one year has been elapsed the authority concerned has not taken any steps. Accordingly the instant contempt application has been preferred.

The State of West Bengal has preferred two appeals to the Hon'ble Division Bench being MAT 1652 of 2024 and MAT 1653 of 2024 along with application stay CAN 1 of 2024.

The Hon'ble Division Bench on hearing the parties refused to grant any stay of operation of the order. Considering the situation, this court filed no impediment to proceed with the instant contempt application.

The alleged contemnors were given liberty to use the affidavit against the contempt application.

Mr. Samanta argued that though the affidavit has been prepared but it was sent for verification. Considering the entire situation prima facie it appears to me the alleged contemnors are deliberately violating the order by not complying of this court's order. In that situation this court has nothing to do with the prayer of Mr. Samanta for accommodation.

According, let a Rule be issued upon the contemnor, the same shall be returnable on 11th November, 2025. I make it clear that issuance of rule shall not prevent the alleged contemnor to comply with the order impugned passed by this court.

Officer to take steps accordingly.

Rule drawn in a separate sheet ( Subhendu Samanta J.)