Disposed¶8

Anita Karmakar v. Abul Kalam Azad Islam, the Commissioner, Durgapur Municipal Corporation

Calcutta HC9 Jul 2026CPAN/1645/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt — CPAN/1645/2025 in WPA/17112/2024 — Anita Karmakar v. Abul Kalam Azad Islam, Commissioner, Durgapur Municipal Corporation — alleged non-execution of reasoned order directing M/s. Skyline Builders and Developers to demolish unauthorised construction within 15 days — substantial compliance found — Rule of Contempt not issued — contempt application disposed of (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.).

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the contempt application was disposed of on the finding of substantial compliance and no Rule of Contempt was issued. ¶8

Anita Karmakar Vs Abul Kalam Azad Islam, the Commissioner, Durgapur Municipal Corporation — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Ct.No.19 D/L 09.07.2026

¶2

¶3

Saikat Mukherjee

¶4

CPAN/1645/2025 in WPA/17112/2024

¶5

ANITA KARMAKAR

¶6

VS.

¶7

ABUL KALAM AZAD ISLAM, THE COMMISSIONER, DURGAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶8

Mr. Binay Kr. Panda, Adv.

¶9

Mr. S. Bhakat, Adv.

¶10

Mr. R. Mondal

¶11

…For the Petitioner/Applicant

¶12

Mr. Sandipan Banerjee, Adv.

¶13

…For the Durgapur Municipal Corporation

¶14

1. The writ petitioner and the alleged contemnor are

¶15

represented by their respective learned counsel.

¶16

2. Photocopy of the reasoned order as passed by the alleged contemnor is taken on record.

¶17

3. At the time of hearing, learned advocate for the writ petitioner draws attention of this Court to the Paragraph No.4 of the order dated 07.10.2024 as passed by this Court in WPA 17112 of 2024.

¶18

4. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by this Court the alleged contemnor though passed a reasoned order and directed one M/s. Skyline Builders and Developers to demolish the unauthorised construction within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of the said reasoned order, however, the present alleged

¶19

Page 2 of 2

¶20

contemnor failed to execute its own reasoned order and for that reason a Rule of Contempt may be issued.

¶21

5. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnor submits before this Court that there was substantial compliance on the part of the alleged contemnor with regard to the order dated 07.10.2024 as passed by this Court.

¶22

6. On careful perusal the entire materials as placed before this Court, this Court finds that the alleged contemnor has passed the reasoned order pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 07.10.2024, though after timeline fixed by this Court. This Court, thus, considers that there was substantial compliance on the part of the alleged contemnor.

¶23

7. In view of such, nothing survives to be decided in the instant contempt application.

¶24

8. With the aforementioned observation, the instant contempt application stands disposed of .

¶25

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

Anita Karmakar v. Abul Kalam Azad Islam, the Commissioner, Durgapur Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Karmakar v. Abul Kalam Azad Islam, the Commissioner, Durgapur Municipal Corporation

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

Badkulla Anchal Large-Sized Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Manarul Malitya Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rajesh Mohta Vs the Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port and Ors.

Raja Birendra Kishore Chatterjee Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Amiya Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mohan Dandapat and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.