27.08.2026 Sl. No.8 Ct. No.14 gd IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL SPECIAL JURISDICTION (CONTEMPT) APPELLATE SIDE WPCRC 80 of 2026 In WPA 3480 of 2025 Abdul Lotib Molla & Anr. Versus Debashis Sarkar, The Block Development Officer, Nowda Development Block & Anr. Md. Sarwar Jahan Mr. Asraf Mandal Ms. Shalini Sen Ms. Sahina Parvin Mr. S. Roy Choudhury …for the Applicants/Petitioners. Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury, Ms. Arpita Chowdhury …for the alleged Contemnor No.1. Ms. Manju Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. B.P. Singh …for the alleged Contemnor No.2. 1. Exception filed on behalf of the petitioners to the affidavit-of-compliance filed by the alleged contemnor No.1 is taken on record. 2. Mr. Sarwar Jahan, learned advocate for the applicants/petitioners submits that as per the order of the court the alleged contemnor No.1, namely, The Block Development Officer, Nowda Development Block was to take steps in accordance with law in the event there is any violation of the existing rules pertaining to evaluation of the tenders. By the order dated 30th June, 2025 of the alleged contemnor though the authority found that the Ortho-O-Parikalpana Upasamity of Raipur Gram Panchayat has not followed the Rules and Regulations of the West Bengal Financial Rule and West Bengal Gram Panchayat Procurement Manual 2014 and that the Pradhan of Raipur Gram Panchayat has violated all the existing Acts and Rules, the matter has once again been redirected to the Pradhan to evaluate financial bid of Niet No.08/ RaipurGP/2024-25 afresh which was never the import of the order passed in the writ petition. Therefore, the alleged contemnor No.1 failed to comply the order of this court in its letter and spirit. 3. Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate representing the alleged contemnor No.1 submits that prior to filing of the contempt application, the order of this Court has been duly complied with by the alleged contemnor passing a reasoned order upon causing enquiry as directed by this court. The applicants/petitioners if at all aggrieved by the order passed by the authority has to file a fresh writ petition challenging the same. The scope of the contempt application cannot be expanded on the plea that the order passed pursuant to the direction of this Court is not favourable to the petitioners in the manner they want. 4. In order to examine the aforesaid submissions, it would be profitable to reproduce the direction in the writ petition being WPA 3480 of 2025 passed on 2nd May, 2025 as hereunder: 2 “In view of the above, the respondent no.8, Block Development Officer, Nowda Development Block, is directed to cause enquiry in respect of the representations dated 26th January, 2025 of the petitioners after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties including the petitioners. Parties are at liberty to produce their respective documents before the authority concerned during enquiry. The enquiry should be concluded within a period of two months from date of communication of the order and, thereafter, if required, the Block Development Officer shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law.” 5. Pursuant thereto, the Block Development Officer on 30th June, 2025 upon hearing both the parties has passed an order which is as follows: “It is clear that the Ortho-O-Parikalpana Upasamity of Raipur Gram Panchayat has not performed its activities as per Rules and Regulations of West Bengal Financial Rule and West Bengal Gram Panchayat Procurement Manual 2014 and rejection of bidder was not done properly. Having considered the submission of both parties and materials placed on records it is found that the Prodhan of Raipur Gram Panchayat has violated all the existing Acts and Rules in connection with the tender process. Hence, In the considered view of The forum It is therefore, O R D E R E D That the Pradhan is directed to take appropriate steps to reconsider the decision taken on 17.01.25 and evaluate financial bidding of Niet No.08/RaipurGP/2024-25 afresh as per West Bengal Financial Rule and Panchayat Procurement Manual 2014 within two weeks from the date of communication of this order and issue fresh work order if required.” 6. The principal grievance of the applicants/petitioners is that the Block Development Officer has directed the Pradhan, who as per the order has violated the existing rules, have been asked to reconsider. Be that as it may, in the opinion of the court upon compliance of the order of this Court, if any party is aggrieved by such order, it is left open to him to challenge such order in a fresh writ petition. Since it appears that the order of this court has been duly complied with, nothing remains to be decided in the present contempt application. 3 7. Accordingly, WPCRC 80 of 2026 stands disposed of. 8. Rule is discharged. 9. The personal appearance of the alleged contemnor No.1 is dispensed with. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.) 4