Petitioner failed to appear when called upon to press his contempt application. The court held the petitioner was no longer interested and dismissed the application.
Contempt application dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Ct. 23.9 No.
14 2022 13 akb (F.N.H.)
C.P.A.N. 1136 of 2000 In W.P. 15235 (W) of 1996 Ananga Mohan Mondal –VersusPritish Pathak & Anr.
( Main File Not In Court )
None appears on behalf of the petitioner at the time
of call.
This is a contempt application under the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner on 6th July, 2000.
The petitioner by filing the instant application, sought for punishment of the contemnors / respondents for violation of the order dated 31st January, 1997 passed by a learned Single Bench in W.P. 15235 (W) of 1996. At the time of filing of the application, the petitioner was aged about 46 years. If he is alive, he is now aged about 68 years. Since the filing of the application, none appeared for the petitioner to press the application.
I feel that the petitioner is no longer interested to proceed with the contempt application on hand.
Accordingly, the contempt application is dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner.
Let this contempt application along with the order passed today be tagged with the main file by the concerned department.
( Rabindranath Samanta, J.)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ananga Mohan Mondal
Pritish Pathak & Anr.
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
