14.08.2026 Sl. No.5 Ct. No.652 S.A. WPCRC 186 of 2026 in WPA 26694 of 2024 Sima Maity -vs- Dr. Soumitra Mohan, Chairman, State Transport Authority, West Bengal – cum – Secretary, Transport Department, Government of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sattwik Bhattacharyya Mr. Aashutosh Bhattacharyya Ms. Reshma Sharma Mr. Aritra Roy …for the petitioner Mr. Samrat Mukherjee Mr. Subhranil Ray …for the State 1. A report is filed in this Court on the earlier date by the alleged contemnor being dated 7th August, 2026. 2. According to the said report, due compliance of this Court’s order dated 13th November, 2024 has already been made by the alleged contemnor. 3. The Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal reports vide as above, inter alia, that a meeting was held on 12th December, 2024. In the same, the petitioner’s application dated 12th October, 2024 has been considered. That, in spite of issuance of notice to the petitioner to remain present at the time of meeting of State Transport Authority on 12th December, 2024 and in spite of receipt thereof, the petitioner did not remain present at the time of meeting. 4. A decision was taken by the Board and communicated as per direction of the Court. 2 5. Perused the report as above. 6. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Bhattacharyya appears and raises strong objection as regards the compliance report as above. He stated that not to be in due and substantive compliance of this Court’s order dated 13th November, 2024. He firstly submits that the petitioner’s application dated 4th October, 2024 was directed to be considered by the alleged contemnor by this Court in its order. However, in violation thereof, the Board has not considered the said application, in the said meeting. He further submits that the process which has been followed by the Board, was earlier held to be as illegal and not maintainable by the Court. It is submitted that the “first in first out” method has already been decided by the Court, to be illegal. Therefore, Board’s decision based thereupon also stands to be not sustainable as per law. 7. So far as illegality of the resolution passed by the Board dated 12th December, 2024 is concerned, this Court, sitting in Contempt Jurisdiction, is constrained to find that to be not a proper issue for consideration here. 8. Hence, no comment is made about that. 9. As regards consideration of the petitioner’s application dated 4th October, 2024 is concerned, it appears that the petitioner was served with notice and thus allowed opportunity to be present in meeting, which she might have not availed of. 3 10. It is further found that after her application for permit dated 4th October, 2024, the petitioner has further filed another application dated 12th October, 2024. The same being the latest one filed by the petitioner, the Board has taken into consideration the same in the meeting dated 12th December, 2024. Substantially the contents of both the applications of the petitioner as above, being same, it cannot be considered to be a gross violation of the Court’s order as above, even being not in strict terms thereof. 11. So far as due compliance of the Court’s order dated 13th November, 2024 is concerned regarding consideration of petitioner’s application for grant of permit, it transpires that after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent Board has passed the resolution dated 13th November, 2024. Thus, the Board appears to have substantially complied with terms of the order dated 13th November, 2024. 12. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the present contempt application and also no further point for adjudication in the same. 13. Hence, Contempt Application No. WPCRC 186 of 2026 stands disposed of. 14. Rule issued earlier stands discharged. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)