JUDGMENT : - Heard Ms. P. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Khanikar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This contempt petition is filed under sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 read with the provisions of Contempt of Court (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner of WP(C) No.2543 of 2012 decided by the learned Single Judge on 26.02.2013. 3. By the order under consideration out of which this contempt petition arises, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. The operative part of the order dated 26.02.2013 rendered in the connected WP(C) No.2543 of 2012 reads as follows: “In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioner in reference to the available materials including the report dated 22.2.2011 and the aforesaid provisions of the rules. If any adjustment here and there is required to be fulfilled by the petitioner, he may also do the same. Let the exercise required to be undertaken in terms of this order, shall be carried out and completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 31.5.2013.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, in this contempt complains that despite petitioner serving a legal notice on the respondents, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, I am inclined to dispose of this contempt petition by extending the period fixed in the order dated 26.02.2013 for its implementation by a further period of 3(three) months from today, as an outer limit provided no appeal is filed by the respondents and no stay is obtained of the order impugned therein. In other words, if no appeal is filed by the respondents and if filed and yet no stay is obtained, then order dated 26.02.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 2543 of 2012 shall have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within 3(three) months from the date of this order.
In other words, if no appeal is filed by the respondents and if filed and yet no stay is obtained, then order dated 26.02.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 2543 of 2012 shall have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within 3(three) months from the date of this order. In case if order is not complied with even within the extended period fixed by the Court subject to what is discussed above, the respondents and all other authorities responsible for ensuring compliance shall be held guilty for committing contempt of this Court order and appropriate order(s) imposing punishment as provided under the Contempt of Courts’ Act would be passed against each of them. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents are requested to forward a copy of this order along with the copy of the original order dated 26.02.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 2543 of 2012 to the respondents, i.e. the official concerned to enable them to ensure compliance as directed. The respondents will also communicate the compliance report to the petitioner as soon as it is complied with within the period fixed by this Court. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M) on 16th June, 2014 in compliance to order dated 7th May, 2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M) [Annexure-I to the affidavit in opposition dated 28.05.2014] wherein he granted liberty to the petitioner to appear before him and present his case in compliance to the order dated 26.02.2013 passed in WP(C) No.2543 of 2012 out of which this contempt application arises. The Deputy Commissioner then will pass appropriate orders keeping in view the order dated 26.02.2013 out of which this contempt application arises within the time fixed. 9. Subject to the aforesaid, this contempt petition stands accordingly disposed of. No cost.