Tripura High Court
Sri Sajal Deb vs Sri Raval Hamendra Kumar on 28 April, 2025
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Cont.Cas(C) No.92/2024
Sri Sajal Deb
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
Sri Raval Hamendra Kumar, IAS & others
.........Respondent(s).
Along with
Cont.Cas(C) No.16/2025
Ardhendu Sekhar Paul & others
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
Sri Raval Hamendra Kumar, IAS & others
.........Respondent(s).
Cont.Cas(C) No.17/2025
Sri Bhajan Sen & another
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
Sri Raval Hamendra Kumar, IAS & others
.........Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate,
Mr. Pannalal Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Advocate General,
Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A.,
Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
Order
28/04/2025
Cont.Cas(C) No.16/2025 and Cont.Cas(C) No.17/2025 are
analogous to the present contempt petition [Cont.Cas(C) No.92/2024] as they
all arise out of the common judgment dated 16.07.2024 passed in a batch of
writ appeals led by W.A. No.86 of 2023 (Sri Sajal Deb vrs. The State of
Tripura & others).
State had gone in Special Leave Petition which has been suffering
from defect. Earlier on 17.03.2025 the matter was adjourned at the request of
learned State Counsel as 8(eight) weeks' time had been granted to the appellant-
State to remove the defects vide order dated 14.02.2025 passed in Special
Leave Petition (Diary No.45051/2024). Meanwhile, notices were also issued
upon the respondents. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit. Respondents
No.3 & 4 have also filed their affidavit.
The common stand of the respondents in respective affidavits is
that on 15.04.2024 the surviving defects have been removed in the pending
SLP.
Learned Advocate General Mr. S.M. Chakraborty assisted by
learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. Dipankar Sarma appears for the
respondents No.3 & 4 and seeks further time so that an order of stay may be
obtained in the pending SLP.
Mr. P. Roy Barman and Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners, have strongly objected to the prayer. They
submitted that unnecessary time is being consumed by the State officials for
compliance of the order on the ground that the Special Leave Petition has been
preferred. However, the respondents have not been serious in pursuing the
Special Leave Petition because till date only defects have been removed. The
SLPs were filed in the year 2024 against the common judgment dated
16.07.2024 from which the instant contempt petitions arise. Therefore, the
respondents may be directed to comply the order. The regularizations of the
petitioners are being delayed despite an order of this Court.
Having regard to the fact brought to the notice of the Court that the
defects in the pending SLPs have been removed and they are probably ripe for
being taken up for admission, the matters are adjourned for 6(six) weeks so that
either of the respondents may obtain a stay or comply with the order.
List the matters after 6(six) weeks.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pulak
PULAK BANIK Date: 2025.04.29 18:53:50
