07.9.2026 Court No.34 I.No.19-21. sg CRR 1529 of 2026 Narendra Kochar Vs. State of West Bengal with CRR 2690 of 2022 with I.A. No. CRAN 9 of 2024, CRAN 15 of 2026 Siddhanth Jain Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. With CRR 2691 of 2022 with I.A. No. CRAN 9 of 2024, CRAN 15 of 2026 Sanjay Kumar Jain Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Soumopriyo Chowdhury Mr. Kausik De Ms. Mohini Majumdar Mr. Raghav Munishi Ms. A. Ghosh Mr. Adnish Chatterjee Ms. Anamika Pandey …for the petitioner in CRR 1529 of 2026. Mr. Amit Halder Mr. Amit Roy …for the State in CRR 1529 of 2026. Mr. Abhijit Chowdhury Mr. Shubham Agarwal …for the petitioner in CRR 2690 of 2022 with CRR 2691 of 2022. Mr. Q. Sinha Mr. Shataroop Purkayastha …for the State in CRR 2690 of 2022. Mr. Pritam Roy Mr. S. Mukherjee …for the State in CRR 2691 of 2022. 1. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record. 2 2. This application has been filed under Section 528 for passing appropriate order in connection with the order dated 6th March, 2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta in GRS Case No. 471 of 2022. 3. It is submitted that at the time of admission of this revisional application there was an order of stay of all further proceedings in G.R.S. Case No. 471 of 2022 by the learned co-ordinate Bench on 4th August, 2022. During pendency of the same the present petitioner applied before the learned Court with a prayer for renewal/reissuance of the passport which was valid till 31st March, 2025. 4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide such order March 6th 2026 refused to consider the prayer only taken into account that in terms of the order passed by this in CRR 2690 of 2022 with CRAN 9 of 2024, CRAN 11 of 2025 that there is an order of stay, next date was fixed for awaiting order from the High Court. 5. Learned Advocate submitted before this Court that by refusing to allow such prayer on the ground that the proceedings are stayed by this Court Learned Magistrate misconstrued the spirit of such order since the prayer was made only for renewal or re-issuance of passport. It is further submitted that in terms of the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court renewal of the or refusal to renew the 3 passport is practically infringing fundamental right. Therefore, prayed for passing appropriate order. 6. Learned advocate representing the State on the other hand, raises strong objection and challenge the maintainability of the instant application on the ground that the order impugned did not reflects refusal of any prayer made by the petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned advocates and going through the materials on record and the order impugned it is apparent that the only a date was fixed for hearing of the petition and the prayer is made setting aside such order. 8. After hearing all the parties the Court only reiterated the order passed by the High Court, staying the investigation and that the interim order has been extended till 10.4.2026.The Learned Court only fixed next date for awaiting order from the High Court. Therefore this court completely agrees with the contention of the Learned Advocate representing the opposite party that no occasion arose to set aside such nature of order by filing the present application. 9. However fact remains that an order of stay has been granted in respect of the investigation by the High Court and in such situation the Learned Magistrate thought it fit and proper not to hear any petition which cannot be said to be complete non application of mind. Since the matter 4 pertains to renewal as well as issuance of the passport and the order of stay as granted by this Court in respect of investigation it is necessary to clarify the said order . 10. Therefore Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the Learned Magistrate fixes a date for hearing of the petitioner,hears the same after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties and disposes the said application within a period of fortnight from the date of uploading the order in the website of High Court at Calcutta . 11. In view of the aforesaid, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present revisional application pending any further. 12. Hence this revisional application CRR 1529 of 2026 stands disposed of with the above direction to the learned Magistrate. Re.: CRR 2690 of 2022 With CRAN 15 of 2026 with CRR 2691 of 2022 With CRAN 15 of 2026 1. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record. 2. None appears to represent the opposite party no.2 3. State is represented. 4. Application being CRAN 15 of 2026 filed for extension of interim order initially granted on 10th April, 2026 by the 5 learned Co-ordinate Bench subsequently extended on 18.6.2026 by this Court. Application filed within time. Copy of the same has been served upon the opposite parties. Opposite party is not present before this Court. 5. On behalf of the State submitted copy of the revisional application has not been served upon them after change of panel of advocates. 6. Therefore, petitioner is directed to serve afresh to the learned advocate representing the State. 7. After hearing learned advocates for the parties this court directs the matter to be listed in the Monthly List of October, 2026 under the same heading. In view of the above the interim order as granted earlier be further extended till 30th November, 2026 or until further orders whichever is earlier. 8. Accordingly, application CRAN 15 of 2026 stands disposed of. 9. Parties are to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the Calcutta High Court. [Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]