Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 684 (GAU)

PONGKOSH SUNAR v. BARUN BHUYAN

2014-06-27

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. SK Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for respondent though served. 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.2537/2013 decided by the learned Single Judge on 14.5.2013. 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 14.5.2013 rendered in the connected WP(C) No.2537/2013 reads as follows: “In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the directions and observations contained in the decision in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra) and Foziron Nessa & Ors. Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340.” 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. As per office note dated 25.6.2014, notice sent to respondent was served on the respondent on 3.5.2014 but despite service no one appeared today for respondent. 7. 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 14.5.2013 for its implementation by a further period of 6(six) 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 14.5.2013 passed in WP(C) No.2537/2013 shall have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within 6 (six) 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 14.5.2013 passed in WP(C) No.2537/2013 shall have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within 6 (six) 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 respondent 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 him. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner is requested to forward a copy of this order along with the copy of the original order dated 14.5.2013 passed in WP(C) No.2537/2013 to the respondent, i.e. the official concerned to enable him to ensure compliance as directed. The respondent will also communicate the compliance report to the petitioner as soon as it is complied with within the period fixed by this Court. 9. Subject to the aforesaid, this contempt petition stands disposed of. No cost.