MOUSUMI CHATTERJEE v. BIDISHA KOLITA (DASGUPTA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SOUTH SUBURBAN DIVI. AND ANR.
CPAN/1828/2025 · 2026-03-20
Shampa Dutt Paul
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14115 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14115 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
20.03.2026
Ct. No. 30
SL No.45 MKP
CPAN 1828 of 2025
Mousumi Chatterjee Vs. The State of West Bengal And Ors.
In WPA 24007 of 2025
Mousumi Chatterjee Vs. The State of West Bengal And Ors.
Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty Mr. Saikat Thakurata ………………for the Petitioner
Mr. Atish Dipankar Ray Mr. Asit Kumar De ……for the Respondent/O.P.No.6
Mr. Swapan Banerjee Mr. Diptendu Narayan Banerjee ………..for the Contemnor State
Mr. Suman Basu Mr. Dipankar Ghosh ………for the KMC (In WPA 24007 of 2025)
1. Affidavit-of-service filed be kept with the record.
2. The alleged contemnor has entered appearance and a report is filed on behalf of the said alleged contemnor by the Learned Counsel for the State, who has placed a report submitted by the officer-in-Charge of Netaji Nagar Police Station, Kolkata.
2
3. On perusal of the said report, it appears that the alleged contemnor, in compliance in this Court’s order dated 14th October, 2025, had visited the premises and on inspection, the following report has been submitted.
4. Considering the said report and the materials on record, this Court finds that the petitioner herein, had invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by impleading the alleged contemnors as a party to this case.
5. On perusal of the report and on hearing the Learned Counsels for the parties, it appears that the submission of the Learned Counsels for the petitioner and the private party is similar to the inspection report submitted by the alleged contemnors.
6. The facts are the same, and from the facts it appears that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the writ jurisdiction was invoked erroneously.
7. Thus there being no violation as alleged the contempt application stands dismissed.
8. A copy of the report be handed over to the parties. The Writ application stands dismissed.
9. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand dismissed of consequently.
10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
3
11. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.
[Shampa DuttS (Paul). J]