In the High Court at Calcutta Special Civil Jurisdiction Appellate Side Contempt 07 17.4.2026 Case No. : CPAN 1483 OF 2025 Sc Ct. No.38 in WPA 2015 OF 2025 ------------- In the matter of : Kakali Biswas & Ors. ..Petitioners -vs.- Mouli Sanyal, Special Land Acquisition Officer, North 24 Parganas, Barasat ….alleged Contemnor/Opposite Party Mr. Bittu Bhowmik Special Land Acquisition Officer, North 24 Parganas, Barasat ..New Incumbent as alleged Contemnor For the Petitioners: Mr. Subhabrata Dutta Mr. Swapan Kumar Kar. ….Advocates For the New Incumbent as alleged Contemnor: Mr. Ayan Banerjee Mr. Ajeyo Chowdhury. ….Advocates This is a contempt proceeding arising from an order dated February 12, 2025. Mr. Subhabrata Dutta, learned Advocate being ably assisted by Mr. Swapan Kumar Kar, learned Advocate appears for the petitioners. Mr. Ayan Banerjee, learned Advocate being ably assisted by Mr. Ajeyo Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for alleged contemnor has submitted a report 2 of compliance with a forwarding letter dated March 24, 2026, issued by the alleged contemnor, the same is taken on record. A copy of the compliance report has already been served upon the petitioners. The compliance report shows that, the reasoned order dated May 14, 2025 has already been passed by the alleged contemnor and the same has already been communicated to the petitioners. Mr. Subhabrata Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the said reasoned order has not been passed in accordance with law as directed by this court and therefore, this contempt. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and upon considering the materials on record and specifically on perusing the reasoned order this Court is of the view that, this Court, while exercising its contempt jurisdiction, is not authorized and empowered to assess the quality and worth of the reasoned order. The Court of Contempt is only concerned with whether the direction of the Court has been willfully and deliberately violated by the alleged contemnor. Considering the consequence of the punishment in a contempt proceeding, which is grave in nature, the Court shall also apply its authority and discretion judiciously. 3 The reasoned order if, according to the petitioners, is not in accordance with law, it shall always be left open to the petitioners to challenge the same through an appropriate legal proceeding, if so advised, in accordance with law for which this Court shall not exercise its contempt jurisdiction. In view of the above, nothing further survives in this contempt proceeding. The contempt proceeding, CPAN 1483 of 2025 stands dropped and closed. The application, CPAN 1483 of 2025 stands disposed of. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to take steps in accordance with law if they are aggrieved with the worth of the reasoned order in accordance with law, if so advised. (Aniruddha Roy, J.)