Tapas Kumar Halder And ORS v. Debasis Roy Chief Engineer Planning South Zone Pwrd

21.01.2026 DL-02 Ct. No. 236 Srimanta In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side CPAN/1935/2025 in WPA 7317 of 2024 Tapas Kumar Halder & Ors.

-Vs.- Debasis Roy, Chief Engineer Planning, South Zone, Public Works (Roads) Department, Bhabani Bhawan, Kolkata Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya, Ms. Sudeshna Basu Thakur, Ms. Banani Bhattacharya, Ms. Upasana Das ...for the petitioners.

1. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the copy of the order dated 13.05.2025 as passed by this Court in WPA/7317/2024. It is submitted that pursuant to the said order dated 13.05.2025 the jurisdictional BL & LRO made a field enquiry and submitted his report with the alleged contemnor who is the respondent no. 3 in the said writ petition.

2. It is further submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that at the time of hearing before the

alleged contemnor (respondent no. 3 in the writ petition) the writ petitioners requested the alleged contemnor to take appropriate steps for providing a copy of the report of the jurisdictional BL & LRO. However, such prayer was not considered and the alleged contemnor proceeded with the hearing and passed a reasoned order dated 19.09.2025.

3. It is submitted that on account of noncompliance of the order dated 13.05.2025 the alleged contemnor has deliberately flouted the order of this Court and this is a fit case for issuance of notice.

4. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed before this Court.

5. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court including the reasoned order dated 19.09.2025 as passed by the alleged contemnor it reveals that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 13.05.2025 the alleged contemnor gave due opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners as well as the contesting respondents and in the said proceeding the writ petitioners duly participated as reveals from the reasoned order dated 19.09.2025.

6. It thus appears to this Court that there was due compliance on behalf of the alleged contemnor in respect of the order dated 13.05.2025.

7. It further appears to this Court that in the event the writ petitioner is still aggrieved with the reasoned order dated 19.05.2025, he has every liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law.

8. With the afore-mentioned observation, CPAN/1935/2025 is disposed of.

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)