21.08.2026 Item No.2 Ct. No. 652 RP WPCRC 184 OF 2026 (CPAN 32 OF 2026) SUDHIR KHAMARU VS SUNY MISRA, D.I. OF SCHOOLS (S.E.) SOUTH 24 PARGANAS Ms. Reshmi Ghosh Mr. Ghanshyam Pandey …… For Alleged Contemnor 1. At the second call none appears for the writ petitioner. 2. The alleged contemnor is personally present, responding to rule issued to him earlier. Ms. Reshmi Ghosh, learned advocate is representing the alleged contemnor. 3. In this contempt petition the petitioner has alleged about willful and deliberate violation of this Court’s order dated 28th October, 2025 passed in WPA 19371 of 2018 by the alleged contemnor. 4. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:- “12.For all the reasons as mentioned above, this Court finds it proper to dispose of the instant writ petition with the direction that the respondent no.3/DI shall consider 2 and decide about the representation of the writ petitioner dated January 24, 2011, by dint of a reasoned order and after giving the writ petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The exercise as above should be concluded by the said respondent within a period of 3 weeks from the date of communication of copy of this judgment, and his order shall be served upon the petitioner within 7 days from its date. 13.With the directions as above, the instant writ petition is disposed of.” 5. Ms. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor has submitted that in compliance of the Court’s order, the alleged contemnor called a meeting on 17th December, 2025 when the petitioner was personally present. The petitioner, since could not produce the documents necessary for a decision with regard to his representation dated January 24, 2011, prayed for accommodation for six weeks. The meeting had ended granting time to the petitioner for six weeks to produce necessary 3 documents relating to “Whether Sri Asim Mondal, the Expert, Selection Committee was a bonafide member of the then Panchayat Samity, Kumirmari Anchal or not.” 6. The interim report has been prepared by the alleged contemnor after proceeding in the meeting on 17th December, 2025 was over, i.e. dated 5th March, 2026. A copy thereof is submitted in Court today and is taken on record. 7. It is submitted that since after expiry of six weeks time period from the date of the first meeting as mentioned above, the petitioner has never turned up again. 8. Having perused the materials on record including the minutes of the meeting dated 17th December, 2025, the interim report submitted by the DI dated 5th March, 2026 and Court’s order under contempt dated 28th October, 2025, this Court is of considered opinion that the direction of this Court issued to the alleged contemnor to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 24th January, 2011 and dispose of the same by dint of a reasoned order, has been adhered to by the alleged contemnor by initiating the 4 process of meeting with the petitioner and giving an opportunity of hearing to him. 9. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has never turned up after six weeks period, which he wanted for production of necessary information/document, before the alleged contemnor, concerning his representation as above. 10. Since the petitioner is not represented today in Court even on the second call, the Court finds that the petitioner has no further interest in pursuing this contempt application. 11. Since this Court is concerned with the alleged contemnor and alleged willful violation of the Court’s order by him only, if any, in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, after careful perusal of the facts as discussed above and the documents as submitted in Court by Ms. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor, I find that appropriate steps have already been taken by the alleged contemnor towards compliance of the Court’s order. As such, this Court is not inclined to proceed with the instant contempt petition any further. However, it is advisable that the alleged contemnor issues a final order 5 disposing of the representation of the writ petitioner dated 24th January, 2011. 12. For the reasons as noted above, the present contempt application stands disposed of. Rule is discharged. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)