Prasanta Bera Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Prasanta Bera Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim accommodation/time prayed for by the alleged contemnor refused; matter listed for 24.4.2026 for further consideration; the alleged contemnor remains free to comply with the Court’s order dated March 24, 2026 in the meantime if no stay is granted by the Hon’ble Appeal Court by then.

Issue for consideration

Whether the accommodation/time prayed for by the alleged contemnor, on the ground of pendency of an appeal against the order under contempt, should be allowed.

Court's answer

This Court is duty-bound to proceed in the contempt in the absence of any order of stay of the Hon’ble Appeal Court operating upon it.

Ratio / Principle

Condoning the alleged contemnor’s repeated lapses in bringing a stay order by duly moving the appeal before the Hon’ble Appeal Court cannot be repeatedly done; the proposition in Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969) squarely applies at this juncture.

Key takeaways

Time as prayed for by the alleged contemnor on the ground of pendency of the appeal cannot be allowed.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt proceeding W.P.C.R.C. 43 of 2026 (arising in WPA 25229 of 2013, Prasanta Bera v. Suny Misra, Dist. Inspector of Schools (SE), South 24 Parganas), before Rai Chattopadhyay, J. on 10.4.2026: the alleged contemnor, personally present pursuant to the rule issued on the previous occasion, sought yet another accommodation on the ground that an appeal against the order under contempt was pending, as had been done on various previous occasions. Refusing further time, the Court applied the recent Supreme Court judgment in Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 — where public interest was held to be better served by timely Governmental action and repeated State lapses deprecated — holding that condoning the alleged contemnor's repeated failures to procure a stay by duly moving the appeal cannot be repeatedly done, particularly since the Court is duty-bound to proceed in the contempt in the absence of any stay order of the Hon'ble Appeal Court operating upon it. The prayer was accordingly declined; the matter was listed for 24.4.2026, with liberty to comply with the Court's order dated March 24, 2026 in the interim if no stay intervened.

W.P.C.R.C. 43 of 2026 in WPA 25229 of 2013 10.4.2026 Prasanta Bera. -vsSuny Misra Dist. Inspector of Schools, (SE), South 24 Parganas ct.25, sl.92 sk Mr. Prahlad Ch. Ghosh Mr. Subir Hazra …for the petitioner. . Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay Ms. Iti Dutta Mr. Nilay Baran Mondal ……for the alleged contemnor 1) The alleged contemnor is personally present in Court in response to the rule issued against him on the previous occasion. 2) Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate has represented the petitioner. 3) Citing pendency of an appeal against the order under contempt, Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate for the alleged contemnor has sought for accommodation today, similarly as it was done on various previous occasions. 4) Pertinent is to mention here a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in which the Court was dealing with the issue whether delay in filing the appeal by the State can be condoned or not, the Hon’ble Court has laid

2

down the ratio that public interest is better served by timely Governmental action. In the context of factual background of that appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has strongly deprecated condoning by the Court, repeated lapses by the State Authority.

Let it be mentioned that the said proposition (in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs Versus Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 ) squarely applies to the instant case at this juncture in so far as condoning repeated lapses by the alleged contemnor to bring a stay order by duly moving the appeal before the Hon’ble Appeal Court cannot be repeatedly done. Particularly, it is so when this Court is duty-bound to proceed in the contempt in absence of any order of stay of the Hon’ble Appeal Court operating upon this Court.

1. In such circumstances, time as prayed for on the ground of pendency of appeal by the alleged contemnor, cannot be allowed.

1. Let this matter be come up in the list on 24.4.2026 for further consideration.

3

Let this be mentioned that this order shall not preclude the alleged contemnor to comply with the Court’s order dated March 24, 2026 in the meantime, if not any order of stay is granted by the Hon’ble Appeal Court, by that time.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)