Disposed¶12

Smarajit Karmokar v. Chandra Sekhar Taulia the Dist. Inspector of Schools Se Hooghly and Anr.

Calcutta HC13 Jan 2026CPAN/1384/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CPAN 1384 of 2024; Smarajit Karmokar v. Sri Goutam Halder & Anr.; in re MAT 341 of 2024; contempt application; willful violation; order dated 14 March 2024; prayer for transfer; concerned District Inspector of Schools; Circular dated 3 January 2022; opportunity of hearing; reasoned order; transfer application rejected; fresh cause of action; disposed of with liberty to challenge before appropriate forum; no order as to costs; Partha Sarathi Chatterjee J.; Tapabrata Chakraborty J.; 13.01.2026; counsel: Ujjal Ray, Sk. Abdur Rahim for appellant.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application disposed of; liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the reasoned rejection order before the appropriate forum, if so advised and in accordance with law; no order as to costs. ¶12

Smarajit Karmokar Vs Chandra Sekhar Taulia the Dist. Inspector of Schools Se Hooghly and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether there has been willful violation of the order dated 14 March 2024 passed in MAT 341 of 2024, whereby the appellant's transfer prayer was to be considered by the concerned District Inspector of Schools in light of the Circular dated 3 January 2022.

¶7

Court's answer

Since the appellant's application for transfer had been rejected by a reasoned order (passed after an opportunity of hearing and duly communicated), the Court held that a fresh cause of action had arisen.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The Court was no longer inclined to proceed further with the contempt application and disposed of it, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the reasoned order before the appropriate forum, if so advised and in accordance with law, with no order as to costs.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt application (CPAN 1384 of 2024), arising in respect of MAT 341 of 2024, filed by Smarajit Karmokar alleging willful violation of the order dated 14 March 2024, which had directed the concerned District Inspector of Schools to consider the appellant's prayer for transfer in light of the Circular dated 3 January 2022, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the school authority, and to communicate the final decision. Pursuant thereto, a hearing was afforded and a reasoned order rejecting the transfer application was passed and communicated. Finding that a reasoned order had rejected the transfer application, the Court held that a fresh cause of action had arisen, declined to proceed further with the contempt application, and disposed of it with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the reasoned order before the appropriate forum, if so advised and in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Bench: Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J. and Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.; decision dated 13.01.2026.

¶1

2 13.01.2026 Ct. No. 11 rrc

¶2

CPAN 1384 of 2024 (Smarajit Karmokar Vs. Sri Goutam Halder & Anr.)

¶3

in MAT 341 of 2024

¶4

Mr. Ujjal Ray (V/C) Sk. Abdur Rahim

¶5

…. For the appellant

¶6

Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record.

¶7

The present contempt application has been filed alleging willful violation of the order dated 14 March 2024 passed in MAT 341 of 2024. By the said order, the appellant’s prayer for transfer was directed to be considered by the concerned District Inspector of Schools in the light of the provisions contained in the Circular dated 3 January 2022, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the school authority, and to communicate the final decision to the appellant.

¶8

Pursuant thereto, an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant and the school authority, and a reasoned order was passed, which was duly communicated to the appellant.

¶9

Referring to certain portions of the reasoned order, Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in virtual mode, submits that the appellant’s prayer for transfer has not been considered in accordance with the provisions contained in the Circular dated 3 January 2022 and, as such, according to Mr. Ray, there is a violation of the order dated 14 March 2024.

¶10

¶11

Having noted the submission of Mr. Ray and considering the fact that the appellant’s application for transfer has been rejected by a reasoned order, we are of the view that a fresh cause of action has, therefore, arisen.

¶12

In light of this, we are no longer inclined to proceed further with the present contempt application. Accordingly, the same is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order before the appropriate forum, if so advised and in accordance with law.

¶13

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶14

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶15

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Smarajit Karmokar v. Chandra Sekhar Taulia the Dist. Inspector of Schools Se Hooghly and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smarajit Karmokar v. Chandra Sekhar Taulia the Dist. Inspector of Schools Se Hooghly and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goutam Mandi and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Durga Rani Kamar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Pradip Kumar Misra Vs Nikhil Mandal and Ors.

Anjan Haldar and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Munshi Mosejul Haque Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Siddique Rahaman Malitha Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.