In The High Court at Calcutta

12.12.2025 Ct. No. 38 Special Civil Jurisdiction Sl. No. 15 Appellate Side Moumita CPAN 263 of 2025 in WPA 15373 of 2024 Abdul Khaleque Molla & Anr.

-Vs.-

Sri Partha Lodh, The BL & LRO, Rajarhat New Town, North 24-PGS.

Ms. Anita Kaunda Ms. Anubrata Dutta ….For the Petitioners Mr. Chandi Charan De, Ld. AGP Mr. Anirban Sarkar ….For the Alleged Contemnor This is an application contempt proceeding arising from an order dated July 15, 2024 at page

112 of the contempt application.

Following the direction of this Court alleged contemnor has passed its reasoned order dated June 10, 2025, which is the series of orders and the last of such is June 20, 2025, as would be evident from the compliance report submitted by the alleged contemnor.

The petitioners have also filed its written of objection to the said compliance report.

Upon reading the written objection submitted by the petitioners and upon considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, it appears that, the petitioners are now challenging the correctness and worth of the said reasoned order.

The jurisdiction of contempt Court is very limited. A Court in exercising of its power under contempt will only examine whether the direction of the Court has been willfully and deliberately violated. If from records, the Court finds that the direction has been complied with, there shall be no contempt. Inasmuch as, the jurisdiction in a contempt proceeding and considering its punishment and consequences, the Court should be very slow to exercise the same and the same shall be exercised judiciously.

The petitioners since have challenged the correctness and /or worthiness of the reasoned order, the same cannot be gone into in contempt jurisdiction.

In view of the forgoing reasons and discussions, this Court is satisfied that there is no contempt.

Accordingly, this contempt proceeding CPAN

263 of 2025 stands dropped and closed.

The application CPAN 263 of 2025 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.

However, if the petitioners are aggrieved with the correctness or worthiness of the reasoned order, they shall be at liberty to take steps in accordance with law, if they are permitted in law.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)