Ct.No.19 D/L 09.07.2026 01 Saikat Mukherjee CPAN/1645/2025 in WPA/17112/2024 ANITA KARMAKAR VS. ABUL KALAM AZAD ISLAM, THE COMMISSIONER, DURGAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Mr. Binay Kr. Panda, Adv. Mr. S. Bhakat, Adv. Mr. R. Mondal …For the Petitioner/Applicant Mr. Sandipan Banerjee, Adv. …For the Durgapur Municipal Corporation 1. The writ petitioner and the alleged contemnor are represented by their respective learned counsel. 2. Photocopy of the reasoned order as passed by the alleged contemnor is taken on record. 3. At the time of hearing, learned advocate for the writ petitioner draws attention of this Court to the Paragraph No.4 of the order dated 07.10.2024 as passed by this Court in WPA 17112 of 2024. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by this Court the alleged contemnor though passed a reasoned order and directed one M/s. Skyline Builders and Developers to demolish the unauthorised construction within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of the said reasoned order, however, the present alleged contemnor failed to execute its own reasoned order and for that reason a Rule of Contempt may be issued. 5. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnor submits before this Court that there was substantial compliance on the part of the alleged contemnor with regard to the order dated 07.10.2024 as passed by this Court. 6. On careful perusal the entire materials as placed before this Court, this Court finds that the alleged contemnor has passed the reasoned order pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 07.10.2024, though after timeline fixed by this Court. This Court, thus, considers that there was substantial compliance on the part of the alleged contemnor. 7. In view of such, nothing survives to be decided in the instant contempt application. 8. With the aforementioned observation, the instant contempt application stands disposed of. (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)