IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL CIVIL JURISDICTION (Appellate Side) Present: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ C.P.A.N 1692 of 2013 In WPA 15486 of 2011 With CAN 1 of 2023 Reserved on : 27.08.2025 Pronounced on: 04.09.2025 Uttam Basak ...Applicant -Vs- Mr. Arup Sengupta ...Contemnor Present:- Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta Mr. Soumya Ray ... for the Applicant Mr. Abhishek Banerjee ….for the Contemnor Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J: 1. The contempt application before this Court stems from the order dated 23rdDecember, 2011 passed in the writ petition WPA 15486 (W) of 2011, involving the petitioner named Pratap Chandra Basak and respondents including the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal. The petitioner alleged non-compliance of the order directing an investigation into the functioning of a recognised educational institution being Shyambazar Primary JCPAN 1692 of 2013- - - -2- School, at premises owned by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the directions of this Court were wilfully disobeyed, causing prejudice and necessitating contempt proceedings. 2. The alleged contemnor, Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal, named Arup Sengupta, who joined office in January 2023, submitted an affidavit of compliance stating that he had taken cognizance of the Court’s directions and initiated the necessary action. This included conducting inquiries, seeking reports from relevant educational authorities and finally passing a reasoned order on 23rd March, 2023. An unconditional apology was also tendered for any inadvertent delay or omission on his part, with a plea for dismissal of the contempt application. 3. The petitioner filed an affidavit of exception opposing the affidavit of compliance. The petitioner submits that the compliance affidavit was false and misleading, suppressing material facts and maligning the integrity of the judicial process. It was alleged that instead of conducting an investigation as mandated, the contemnor had sought to amalgamate two previously derecognized educational institutions, Shyambazar Primary School and Shyambazar Balika Vidyamandir, which was outside the scope of the Court’s order. The petitioner further alleged collusion between the contemnor and parties involved in the related litigation, and emphasized that the institutions continued to function unlawfully on the petitioner's premises deprived of his consent. The petitioner maintains that all actions by the contemnor amounted to an abuse of the process of Court and that allowing the affidavit of compliance would result in miscarriage of justice. 4. This Court has carefully examined the affidavits on record, the history of the case and the submissions of learned counsel for both parties. It is evident that the petitioner initially approached this Court seeking relief for cessation of the functioning and derecognition of the respondent educational JCPAN 1692 of 2013- - - -3- institution at the designated premises. This was followed by the Court’s order dated 23rd December, 2011, directing the School Education Department to investigate the status of the institution in accordance with the relevant notifications including that of 1975. The Court had mandated the authority to complete the inquiry promptly and pass orders in a reasoned manner with communications to parties concerned. 5. Upon taking office, the present Commissioner submitted that due compliance was undertaken through formal investigations as per the Court’s directions, involving the District Inspectors for Primary and Secondary Education and the Kolkata Primary School Council. Their reports indicated that both Shyambazar Primary School and Shyambazar Balika Vidyamandir have been operating from the premises, with rising enrollments and no violation of applicable rules or regulations warranting closure or amalgamation. The Commissioner’s final reasoned order took into account the public interest in ensuring continued educational services and directed adherence to civil legal processes regarding any property disputes. This course of action, coupled with an unqualified apology tendered before the Court, was asserted as substantial compliance. 6. The petitioner’s counter-arguments focus mainly on the authenticity, timing and completeness of such compliance. They highlight the peculiar coincidence of invocation of relating MAT 544 of 2023 on the same date as the Commissioner’s order, which raises questions of transparency and motive. The petitioner further contends that investigation was misdirected, focusing on amalgamation and avoiding mandated scrutiny, thereby concealing unlawful occupation and infringement of proprietary rights. The objection calls into question the bona fides of the contemnor’s actions and places reliance on disputed facts related to property ownership and recognition status. JCPAN 1692 of 2013- - - -4- 7. The Court bears in mind that contempt jurisdiction is invoked to safeguard the authority and dignity of the Court by punishing wilful, deliberate disobedience of its orders. However, such proceedings are not intended to function as quasi-trial for resolving complex factual disputes best left to civil adjudication. The essential ingredients of contempt namely knowledge of the order, ability to comply and deliberate perversion or obstruction of justice must be established on a high threshold. 8. In this case, the Commissioner demonstrated that he acted promptly upon assuming office, sought the necessary information and issued a reasoned order respecting the Court’s directives. The apology tendered dispels any presumption of willful defiance. Although the petitioner raises substantial points relating to the extent and sufficiency of such compliance, these relate primarily to factual contentions and collateral disputes of property rights and recognition. These issues fall within the ambit of civil remedies or separate proceedings and do not by themselves sustain a charge of contempt. 9. The Court notes that continued disputes between landlord and tenant, and the question of lawful occupation or recognition of educational institutions, cannot be resolved by contempt jurisdiction. The contemnor’s acknowledgment that all parties are bound by subsequent orders passed in related matters further underscores the ongoing nature of these disputes. 10. Promoting the dignity of judicial orders does not preclude recognition of efforts made towards compliance, especially when no clear evidence of mala fide or intransigence exists. Allowing the contempt application to languish despite substantial fulfilment of orders would undermine the purpose of judicial enforcement and would lead to undue prolongation of proceedings. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is satisfied that the contempt application deserves to be disposed of. Substantial compliance by the JCPAN 1692 of 2013- - - -5- contemnor demonstrably purges any alleged contempt and the prayer for dismissal is hereby allowed. 12. The contempt application bearing CPAN 1692 of 2013 in WPA 15486 (W) of 2011 is therefore disposed of. 13. All pending applications arising therefrom stand disposed of. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J) Kolkata 04.09.2025 PA (BS)