Sk. Ahmadullah Asad Vs Rupak Nandi, the Assistant Engineer, PWD and Anr.

¶1

03.07.2026 Item No.05 Ct. No. 19 PG

¶2

CPAN 1667 of 2025 in

¶3

WPA 3500 of 2024 Sk. Ahmadullah Asad

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Mr. Rupak Nandi, The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD) Roads, Howrah Highway Division & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Goutam Dinda Mr. Sandip Ray……….for the petitioner

¶7

Mr. Ranajit Talukdar Ms. Sabita Roy Mr. Partha Sarathi Boyal …..for the alleged contemnor nos. 1 & 2 Mr. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Quazi Ezaz Ahmed…..for the alleged contemnor no.3

¶8

The writ petitioner, alleged contemnor nos. 1 and 2 and alleged contemnor no. 3 are represented by their respective learned counsel.

¶9

On behalf of the alleged contemnor nos. 1 and 2, a report of compliance dated 18.06.2026 is filed and the same is taken on record.

¶10

Learned advocate for the alleged contemnor nos. 1 and 2 has supplied a copy of the said report dated 18.06.2026 to the learned advocate for the writ petitioner as well as to the alleged contemnor no. 3.

¶11

In course of hearing, Mr. Ray draws attention of this Court to the order dated 29.04.2025. It

¶12

2

¶13

is submitted by Mr. Ray that though in compliance of the said order dated 29.04.2025, a reasoned order has been passed but the alleged contemnor no.1 has not proceeded thereafter in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 (‘Act of 1964’ in short).

¶14

Mr. Talukdar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnor nos. 1 and 2, in course of his submission draws attention of this Court to page nos. 34 and 35 of the report, as filed today. It is submitted by Mr. Talukdar that on perusal of the copy of the memo dated 05.06.2026, it would reveal that the alleged contemnor no. 1 has requested the jurisdictional Sub-Divisional Officer to take appropriate steps for removal of the encroachment in terms of the reasoned order, as passed by him.

¶15

It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Talukdar there was sufficient compliance on the part of the alleged contemnor no. 1 of the order dated 29.04.2025.

¶16

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnor no. 3 supports the contention of Mr. Talukdar. It is submitted that from the said memo dated 05.06.2026, it

¶17

3

¶18

would reveal that the jurisdictional SubDivisional Officer was requested to remove the encroachment. However, on being asked, Mr. Quazi Ezaz Ahmed, learned advocate for the alleged contemnor no. 3 submits before this Court that encroachment has not yet been removed.

¶19

Mr. Ray in his reply, submits before this Court that unless the encroachment is fully removed, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there was sufficient compliance on the part of the alleged contemnor nos. 1 and 2 in connection with the order dated 29.04.2025.

¶20

On careful perusal of the entire materials, as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, this Court finds that after passing of the reasoned order, the alleged contemnor no. 1 being the Assistant Engineer, Uluberia Highway Sub-Division proceeded in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Act of 1964 and issued a memo to the jurisdictional Sub-Divisional Officer for removal of the encroachment in terms of such reasoned order.

¶21

4

¶22

In view of such, this Court finds that there was sufficient compliance on the part of the alleged contemnor no. 1.

¶23

With the aforementioned observations, the instant contempt application is disposed of.

¶24

Before parting with, it is, however, made clear that disposal of the contempt application will not prevent the Sub-Divisional Officer, Uluberia Sub-Division, Uluberia, Howrah to remove the encroachment pursuant to the reasoned order dated 27.04.2026 in accordance with law.

¶25

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.

¶26

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

Sk. Ahmadullah Asad v. Rupak Nandi, the Assistant Engineer, PWD and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Ahmadullah Asad v. Rupak Nandi, the Assistant Engineer, PWD and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haldia Municipality Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sk Karim Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Raju Mandal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sk. Rownaqzzaman and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

MD Abdul Basir Sk and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Harendra Nath Naskar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.