DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The petitioner has complained of violation of the Order dated March 12, 2014 passed in W.P. No. 5928 (W) of 2014 (Jodab Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.).
(2.) The contempt petition was moved on June 27, 2014 when the learned Advocate for the petitioner had submitted that, the Order dated March 12, 2014 has not been complied with. A Rule of contempt was issued on July 21, 2014. By an Order dated September 1, 2014 directions for filing affidavits were given. On February 19, 2015 leave was granted to correct the cause title by inserting the name of the new incumbent and to serve the contempt application upon the new incumbent afresh. A contempt Rule was issued on March 27, 2015 against the new incumbent. On May 8, 2015 the alleged contemnor was present. Time to submit a reply to the show - cause was granted upon payment of costs. The reply to the show - cause has since been filed. Costs have also been paid. The contempt Rules have been issued in this proceedings. Upon the learned Judge issuing the Contempt Rules retiring, the contempt petition had appeared in my list in accordance with the determination in respect of the subject matter.
(3.) When the contempt petition was taken up for hearing by me, none had appeared for the petitioner. I had requested the learned Advocate for the alleged contemnor to inform the learned Advocate of the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, the learned Advocate for the petitioner had appeared. On the first day of his appearance before me, he had submitted that, the contempt petition may be disposed of as the petitioner is not seeking any further relief. The learned Advocate for the alleged contemnor had opposed the prayer for disposal on the ground that the petitioner had acted malafide and obtained orders from the Courts by suppression of material facts. He had brought to my notice the fact that, the Order dated March 12, 2014 stood complied with prior to the issuance of the contempt Rule on March 27, 2015.;