Petitioner filed a contempt application seeking punishment for non-compliance of a writ order. Due to the petitioner's failure to appear and the judge's finding that the petitioner is no longer interested, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
23-09-2022 Item no.16
Subrata Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction Appellate Side
CPAN No.998 of 2003 Sri Gour Hari Ruidas
-vs-
Mr. Julfikar Hassan & Anr.
arising out of WPA No.4611 of 2003
None …for the petitioner
To press the contempt application, none represents the petitioner.
The petitioner, by way of this contempt application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 filed on July 2, 2003, sought for punishment of the alleged contemners/respondents concerned in the writ petition for non-compliance of an order dated May 6, 2003 passed by this court in WP No.4611(W) of 2003.
At the time of filing of the application, the petitioner was aged about 45 years. He is now 64 years.
It appears that since filing of the contempt application, none moved to press it.
I feel that the petitioner is no longer interested to proceed with the application on hand.
Accordingly, the contempt application stands dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner.
[Rabindranath Samanta, J]
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to proceed with the contempt application filed for non-compliance of a court order due to the petitioner's non-appearance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Gour Hari Ruidas
Mr. Julfikar Hassan & Anr.
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
