Disposed¶19

Bijan Sikdar v. Debasis Das, the Registrar, University of Calcutta

Calcutta HC6 May 2026CPAN/956/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court contempt proceeding (CPAN 956 of 2025 in WPA 6230 of 2025, Jay Sengupta J.) by Bijan Sikdar against Debasis Das, Registrar, University of Calcutta, for delayed compliance with a writ order directing consideration of his representation; compliance ultimately effected by a reasoned order dated 27.08.2025 rejecting the prayer; Court held contempt jurisdiction exists to enforce compliance and declined to proceed; application disposed of, notice discharged, liberty to challenge reserved. Keywords: contempt, Rule, University of Calcutta, Registrar, compliance, delay, reasoned order, notice discharged.

What did the court decide?

There was indeed a delay in considering the petitioner's representation as directed by this Court; however, it was finally done by a reasoned order on 27.08.2025. ¶15

Bijan Sikdar Vs Debasis Das, the Registrar, University of Calcutta — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether Rule should be issued upon the respondent no.3/alleged contemnor (Registrar, University of Calcutta) for the alleged violation of the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in WPA 6230 of 2025.

¶10

Court's answer

There was indeed a delay in considering the petitioner's representation as directed by this Court; however, it was finally done by a reasoned order on 27.08.2025.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The whole purpose of exercising contempt jurisdiction is to enforce compliance of orders passed by this Court; since the alleged contemnor complied with the order, albeit after some delay and by a reasoned order, the Court finds no reason to proceed further in the matter.

¶18

Key takeaways

It would be open to the petitioner to challenge the reasoned order dated 27.08.2025 before the appropriate authority, if he is aggrieved.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Jay Sengupta, J.; judgment date printed as 06.05.2026) — Bijan Sikdar v. Debasis Das, Registrar, University of Calcutta, CPAN 956 of 2025 in WPA 6230 of 2025. Contempt application alleging violation of the order dated 21.03.2025 in WPA 6230 of 2025, whereby the Registrar was directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.03.2025 in accordance with law, preferably within eight weeks from communication; the order was communicated on 25.03.2025. Per the petitioner, others were promoted to the post and the compliance order was passed only after service of the contempt application, allegedly as a colourable exercise. The representation was ultimately dealt with by a reasoned order dated 27.08.2025, whereby the prayer was considered and rejected. Held: the whole purpose of exercising contempt jurisdiction is to enforce compliance of orders passed by this Court; the alleged contemnor having complied with the order, albeit after some delay and by a reasoned order, there was no reason to proceed further. Contempt application disposed of without any further order, even as to costs; notice discharged; petitioner left free to challenge the order before the appropriate authority if aggrieved.

¶1

HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶2

Present:

¶3

The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta

CPAN 956 of 2025

WPA 6230 of 2025

Bijan Sikdar Vs

Debasis Das, The Registrar, University of Calcutta

¶9

For the Petitioner/applicant	:	Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Ms. Debapriya Mitra.
For the contemnor nos.2&5	:	Mr. NIlotpal Chatterjee, Mr. Sourabh Sengupta.
Heard on	:	06.05.2026
Judgment on	:	06.05.2026
JAY SENGUPTA, J:

¶10

This is an application praying for issuance of Rule upon the respondent no.3/alleged contemnor being the Registrar of the University of Calcutta for the alleged violation of an order dated 21.03.2025 passed by this Court in WPA 6230 of 2025 .

¶11

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/applicant submits as follows. By an order dated 21^st March, 2025 passed by this Court in WPA 6230 of 2025 , this Court directed the representation of

¶12

¶13

the petitioner dated 17.03.2025 to be considered by the Registrar of the Calcutta University in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The order was communicated upon the alleged contemnor on 25^th March, 2025. Yet, no order was passed within the stipulated time. Instead, some other persons were promoted to the post in question. It was only after service of the contempt application that the alleged contemnor passed an order purportedly in compliance with the order. As some others had already been promoted to the post, it was a colourable exercise of power done by the alleged contemnor to circumvent the order passed by this Court. Therefore, it is clearly a case of deliberate and contemptuous violation of the Court’s order.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnor opposes the prayer. He submits that although there was a delay in complying with the Court’s order of passing a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner dated 27.08.2025, the representation was considered in accordance with law and after assigning reasons, the prayer was considered and rejected. The petitioner can fairly challenge the said order before the appropriate authority, if aggrieved.

¶15

It appears that there was indeed a delay in considering the representation of the petitioner as directed by this Court. However, the same was done finally, by a reasoned order on 27.08.2025.

¶16

¶17

It would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same, if he is aggrieved by the same.

¶18

The whole purpose of exercising contempt jurisdiction is to enforce compliance of orders passed by this Court. The alleged contemnor has complied with the order passed by this Court, albeit after some delay and by a reasoned order. So, I do not find any reason to proceed any further in this matter.

¶19

Accordingly, the contempt application is disposed of without any further order, even as to costs. The notice is discharged.

¶20

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.

¶21

(Jay Sengupta, J)

¶22

NB/281

Bijan Sikdar v. Debasis Das, the Registrar, University of Calcutta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijan Sikdar v. Debasis Das, the Registrar, University of Calcutta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joynal Mondal @ Jaynal Ali Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Md. Sariful Molla Vs State of West Bengal

Sonali Bibi Vs State of West Bengal

Bantul Chandra Naskar @ Batul Naskar Vs State of West Bengal

Shibshankar Maity and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Kamal Sk and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal