Sk. Ismail v. Kaustav Hati, Blro, Mahishadal

Calcutta HC4 Feb 2026CPAN/48/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CPAN 48 of 2026; WPA 18251 of 2024; Sk. Ismail v. Kaustav Hati, BL&LRO, Mahishadal; contempt application; compliance with writ court direction dated 16.01.2025; representation dated 07.06.2024 considered; construction found illegal; matter forwarded to BL&LRO; no further steps taken; disposed of without further order, even as to costs; liberty to approach appropriate forum; Jay Sengupta, J.; decided 04.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the contempt application was disposed of without any further order, even as to costs, with the petitioner left at liberty to pursue any further cause of action before the appropriate forum. ¶¶12 (pt. 5)

Sk. Ismail Vs Kaustav Hati, Blro, Mahishadal — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶12 (pt. 5)

Issue for consideration

Whether the direction given by this Court in the judgment dated 16.01.2025 in WPA 18251 of 2024 — to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.06.2024 — has been complied with, and whether any further order is required in the contempt application.

¶¶9 (pt. 2)

Court's answer

The direction passed by this Court upon respondent no. 5 to consider the petitioner's representation has already been complied with.

¶¶9 (pt. 2)

Ratio / Principle

No further order need be passed in the matter; the application for contempt is disposed of without any further order, even as to costs.

¶¶12 (pts. 4-5)

Key takeaways

If a further cause of action arises, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take up the issue before the appropriate forum.obiter¶¶11 (pt. 3)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt application CPAN 48 of 2026 in WPA 18251 of 2024 (Sk. Ismail v. Kaustav Hati, BL&LRO, Mahishadal), decided 04.02.2026 by Jay Sengupta, J. Counsel for the applicant submitted that by a judgment dated 16.01.2025 in WPA 18251 of 2024 the writ petition had been disposed of by directing respondent no. 5 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.06.2024 in accordance with law, preferably within eight weeks of communication; the representation was considered, the construction was found illegal, and the matter was forwarded to the BL&LRO, but no further steps were taken. The Court held that the direction upon respondent no. 5 to consider the petitioner's representation has already been complied with, that no further order need be passed, and disposed of the application for contempt without any further order, even as to costs, while leaving the petitioner at liberty to take up any further cause of action before the appropriate forum.

Sk. Ismail v. Kaustav Hati, Blro, Mahishadal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Ismail v. Kaustav Hati, Blro, Mahishadal

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

Abdus Salam Choudhury @ Abdus Salam @ Abdus Samad @ Gonga Vs State of West Bengal

Rakim Sk Vs State of West Bengal

MD Naaseer Alias Nasser Alias Nasir Vs the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Palash Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Xyz Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

MD Adnan Khan and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal