JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the records.

2. This is a contempt application by the petitioner, alleging willful and deliberate violation of this Court’s order dated September 20, 2024, passed in writ petition no. WPA 23788 of 2017.

3. Mr. Biswas appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the order of the Court as above, has not been complied with by the alleged contemnor in its true letters and spirit. Instead, after filing of this contempt and in an endevour to safeguard himself from the obvious fall out of his wilful disobedience of the Court’s order, an order has been passed by the said alleged contemnor, that is, dated November 27, 2024, which is nothing but an eye wash only.

4. Mr. Biswas has stated that the so-called compliance by the alleged contemnor vide his order dated November 27, 2024 is nothing but sham and may not be acceptable by this Court as a due compliance of its order, as mentioned above.

5. By referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C. Elumalai and Others Vs. A.G.L. Irudayaraj and Another reported in 2009 4 SCC 213, he has stated that in case a clear and unambiguous order of the Court which may not be capable of more than one interpretation, is to be complied with by the alleged contemnor in its true letters and spirit and disobedience or breach thereof, would amount to contempt of Court. By relying on the said judgment, he has stated that misunderstanding or own-understanding of the Court’s order would not be a permissible defence for the alleged contemnor, in that case.

6. As regards the subject matter, as involved in the present contempt application, a clarificatory order of this Court, as regards the judgment of the Hon’ble Larger Bench in the case of Utpal Kanti Karan-vs-State of West Bengal reported in 2024 SCC Online Cal 1274, is also referred to, that is, an order dated December 23, 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in FMA No. 538 of 2020 (State of West Bengal and Another Vs. Bakul Kumar Sing and Others).

7. By referring to the two other decisions as follows, passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in contempt jurisdiction, Mr. Biswas has submitted that, even in contempt jurisdiction and upon finding non-satisfactory compliance by the alleged contemnor of the directions of the Court, the Court may issue further orders for fresh compliance as well as even granting the benefits to the writ petitioner as prayed for. The orders are as follows:-

CPAN/622/2023 (Sanjay Kundu and Ors. Vs. Partha Pratim Roy, Chairman, North Bengal State Transport Corporation and Ors.) dated 19.1.2024 and 13.02.2025.

8. Thus, Mr. Biswas has insisted that a rule may be issued in the present contempt application.

9. Serious objections have been raised on behalf of the alleged contemnor, which is represented by Mr. Basu Mallick. Affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed by the said alleged contemnor.

10. Mr. Basu Mallick has submitted firmly and with conviction that issuance of the order dated November 27, 2024 by the alleged contemnor, amounts to due compliance with the Court’s order. In this regard Mr. Basu Mallick has taken the Court to the concerned order, to submit that after setting aside the impugned order dated February 12, 2009 in the said writ petition, the petitioner’s prayer has been relegated by the Court to the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal for assessing the petitioner’s prayer afresh and to pass a reasoned order thereupon. According to the alleged contemnor, the relevant order of him dated November 27, 2024 is exactly the same. Hence, even after complying with the Court’s order, it is stated, that the alleged contemnor cannot be held liable for contempt of Court by demeaning the Court’s honour in any manner whatsoever. So far as this contempt application is concerned according to the alleged contemnor, there is not cogent ground for the petitioner to sustain it successfully.

11. The subject matt