Form No. J(2) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Sandip Kumar De WPLRT 148 of 2026 Janmeyjay Mondal @ Janmenjay Mondal and another Vs. The State of West Bengal and others For the petitioners : Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Mr. Amit Bikram Mahata For the State : Mr. Tapas Kumar Sil Heard on : 17.08.2026 Judgment on : 17.08.2026 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:- 1. Affidavit-of-service filed today be kept on record. 2. The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby the learned Tribunal dropped a contempt proceeding on the ground that since the alleged contemnor/B.L. & L.R.O, in pursuance of a previous direction of the Tribunal, has passed a reasoned order, the appropriate remedy would be to go before the Appellate Authority under the statute and it was beyond the limited contempt jurisdiction of the Tribunal to go into the merits of the main matter. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the B.L. & L.R.O, although paid lip-service to the direction of the Tribunal, upset the entire settled position, as established by the relevant documents and records, by way of the so-called reasoned order. It is submitted that in the event the writ petitioners are compelled to go back to the Appellate Authority and undertake the entire cycle of challenge before the Appellate Authority first and then the Tribunal, it would be a travesty of justice in view of the perversity writ large over the order of the B.L. & L.R.O. 4. However, on a careful perusal of the order of the B.L. & L.R.O., which is also annexed to the present writ petition, we find that some reasons have been attributed for passing the said order. 5. Even if the Court/Tribunal is to come to a conclusion ultimately that the said order is de hors the law and the records, the Court/Tribunal has to undertake an exercise of examining the records as well as the other relevant documents which led to the findings of the B.L. & L.R.O. 6. Such exercise, as rightly held by the Tribunal, would be entirely beyond the limited purview of contempt jurisdiction and would traverse into the domain of sitting over the merits of the order in appeal. 7. The remedy of the writ petitioners lie in an appeal before the appropriate Appellate Authority under the relevant statute against the said order of the B.L. & L.R.O and not in a contempt proceeding. Since the B.L. & L.R.O has passed a reasoned order, whatever may be 3 its legal worth, the recourse of the aggrieved party lies in an appeal and not in a contempt application. 8. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Tribunal. 9. Hence, WPLRT 148 of 2026 is dismissed, thereby affirming the order dated February 06, 2026 passed in M.A. 530 of 2024, arising out of O.A. 2413 of 2021 (LRTT), granting liberty to the writ petitioners to prefer an appropriate challenge against the order of the B.L. & L.R.O dated December 29, 2025. 10. There will be no order as to costs. 11. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) I agree. (Sandip Kumar De, J.) AD-37 TN