17.08.2026 Item No.1 Ct. No.652 PG WPCRC 108 of 2024 I.A. No CAN 1 of 2026 In WPA 22065 of 2022 Jitendra Kumar Yadav Vs Sourabh Trivedi, The Inspector General Cum Principal Chief Security Commissioner, RPF Metro Railway & Anr. Ms. Shraboni Sarkar Mr. Umme Habiba Khatun ….for the contempt petitioner Ms. Anamika Pandey Mr. Kalyan Kr. Chakraborty….for the alleged Contemnors 1. Both the parties are represented. 2. Ms. Anamika Pandey, learned advocate appearing for the applicants in I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026 has raised strong resentment of her clients as to the order of this Court dated 11.08.2026 insofar as the alleged intentional suppressions of the directions of the Hon’ble Division Bench in FMA 588 of 2024 vide judgment dated 03.08.202, by the petitioner before this Court. 3. She submits that as a result, the Court directed for personal appearance of the contemnors, whereas they are not part of the office any further being transferred since. 4. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench in the appeal, as above, has stipulated four weeks time period for compliance of the Court’s order, within which the alleged 2 contemnors might not have been directed to be personally present in Court, in connection with the instant contempt application. 5. Ms. Anamika Pandey, learned advocate for the applicants, insists for an exemplary costs for willful and deliberate suppression of material fact by the contempt petitioner in Court. 6. Ms. Shraboni Sarkar, learned advocate appeared for the contempt petitioner. She accepts that time-frame fixed for compliance of the Court’s order by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the appeal as above, was not mentioned, when she moved the contempt application after the order of the Division Bench, as above. 7. She renders unconditional apology stating the same is an inadvertence on her part. 8. Having considered the submissions of both the learned advocates for the respective parties and perusing the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in FMA 588 of 2024 dated 03.08.2026, I find that the order under contempt of this Court has been upheld and time-frame has been fixed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, of four weeks, for the present alleged contemnors/respondents in the writ petition, to comply with the Court’s order. 3 9. In such circumstances, I find this contempt application (CPAN 786 of 2024) to be infructuous. 10. Accordingly, CPAN 786 of 2024 stands disposed of as infructuous. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to its parties on usual undertaking. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)