01 0077..0088..22002266 Ct. No. 01 KCP CPAN 1416 of 2025 Arindam Sarma Vs. Mr. Santanu Basu, Director Madrasah Education (WB) in MAT 1950 of 2024 Mr. Ranjit Kumar Jaiswal Md. Mokaram Hossain Mr. Razzak Hossain Mr. Salauddin Ahamed Mr. Saumen Gayen Md. Naimul Islam …. For the petitioner/applicant Ms. Manju Agarwal, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal Ms. Sneha Chatterjee …. For the alleged contemnor The present contempt application has been preferred alleging violation of an order dated 19th May, 2025 passed in the appeal being MAT 1950 of 2024 along with the connected applications being CAN 1 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024. Records reveal that after the order dated 19th May, 2025 was communicated, the Director of Madrasah Education, West Bengal passed an order dated 31st July, 2025 considering the appellant’s application dated 3rd February, 2020 for grant of compassionate appointment. The said order dated 31st July, 2025 has been brought on record by the appellant by filing an exception. Mr. Jaiswal, learned advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the alleged contemnor has willfully and deliberately violated the solemn order of this Court 2 dated 19th May, 2025. The specific directions and observations contained in the said order have not been followed by the alleged contemnor while passing order dated 31st July, 2025 and the same has been passed in a mechanical manner. Such act constitutes deliberate violation. He further submits that the said order dated 31st July, 2025 has also not been passed within the timeframe as directed by the Hon’ble Court. Ms. Agarwal, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the alleged contemnor, at the outset, tenders her unqualified apology for and on behalf of the alleged contemnor for not having passed the order within the timeframe fixed by the Hon’ble Court. She further submits that a fresh cause of action has arisen since in compliance of the directions of this Court, the order has been passed by the alleged contemnor considering the representation of the appellant. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. It is well settled that once an order has been passed by a party to a proceeding on the basis of the direction issued by the Court, they are arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum and such action does not constitute any intentional or deliberate violation of the order of this Court. 3 In the said conspectus, we are not inclined to proceed with the contempt application any further and the same is, accordingly, disposed of. However, we make it clear that the appellant would be at liberty to challenge the order dated 31st July, 2025 passed by the alleged contemnor before the appropriate forum, if so advised and in accordance with law. (Smita Das De, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)