17.09.2026 Item No. 6 Crt.No.10 AGM CPAN 723 of 2026 In WPA 11184 of 2019 Dhananjoy Das -vs- Mr. Pranab Kumar Ghosh The Managing Director, SBSTC Mr. Chandan Dutta. V.C. Mr. Goutam Malik. …. For the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Ayan Banerjee. Ms. Debasree Dhamali. Ms. Riya Ghosh. Ms. Debolina Ghosh. … For the State alleged contemnor. 1. CPAN 723 of 2026 is a contempt application filed by the petitioner alleging, willful disobedience of the order dated 05.03.2026 wherein there was a specific direction to consider the representation dated 29.3.2026 in the light of the agreement dated 17.06.2010 and the letter dated 31.08.2010 to arrive at a logical conclusion by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor no. 1 files a compliance report and submits that pursuant to the order dated 5.3.2026 the same has been complied with by taking a decision on 21.4.2026. Further 2 submits that the interest of 10% as directed in paragraph 16 of the order, however, is not applicable in the petitioner’s case. 3. From the compliance report, it appears that the petitioner is not entitled to any further amount since the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,07,060/- only was already deducted while releasing his dues/security money on 12.03.2019. 4. The relevant portion of the compliance report is reproduced below: “On observation of record in the file it is found that the vehicle no. WB-39A/3259 allotted to Sri Dhananjoy Das was under his custody from the period of 18.08.2010 to 06.10.2012 i.e. approximately 26 months. As per the terms of agreement Clause 3A total monthly rental charges for this period was assessed to Rs. 4,47,759/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Seven Thousands Seven Hundred Fifty Nine) only, but only an amount of Rs. 1,07,060/- (Rupees One lakhs Seven Thousands Sixty) only was deducted while releasing his dues/security money on 12.03.2019. Thus he was given considerable relaxation in terms of total due pending against him. However, considering his prayer dated 30.03.2026 and 29.03.2019, I am inclined to take a further lenient view and hereby order that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One lakhs) only be refunded to him which was a part deduction towards pending rental charges of the vehicle allotted to him.” 3 5. Since the petitioner is not entitled to any further amount, thus the question of releasing any further amount along with an interest does not arise. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the authority concerned has taken a decision pursuant to the order dated 5.6.2020, the same has not been complied with by effecting payment along with interest of 10% as indicated in paragraph 16 of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the parties and upon perusing the materials on record, this Court has taken a judicial notice of the compliance report including a decision taken by the authority concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the alleged contemnor no. 1 has already complied with the order and there is no willful disobedience in such compliance. 8. In view of the aforesaid compliance, this court is of the opinion that no further proceeding in the contempt application is required to be continued. 9. Contempt application stands disposed of. 10. The Contempt Rule if any stands discharged. 4 11. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Smita Das De, J.)