Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 96 (GAU)

BIDHU DAS v. V. K. PIPERSENIA

2014-01-27

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned for the petitioner, Mrs. V.L. Singh, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, Mr. S. Baruah, learned counsel and Mrs. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, 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.3667 of 2012 decided by the learned Single Judge on 2.8.2012. 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 2.8.2012 rendered in the connected WP(C) No. 3667 of 2012 reads as follows: “As agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this writ petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself with the following direction(s): The respondents shall consider the petitioners' case for compensation in terms of relevant policies/guidelines and in accordance with law contained in that behalf. If the petitioners are found entitled to the compensation amount as prayed for, the same shall be disbursed to the petitioners after proper verification by respondent No.1, namely, Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue (Reforms) Department. The whole exercise so directed be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioners shall furnish a certified copy of this order before the respondent No.1 along with the copy of the writ petition with annexures appended thereto for doing the needful.” 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 petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents, I am inclined to dispose of this contempt petition by extending the period fixed in the order dated 2.8.2012 for its implementation by a further period of 6(six) months from to-day, 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 2.8.2012 passed in WP(C) No. 3667 of 2012 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 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. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that one Department of the State is not cooperating with the other Department of the State and, therefore, order in question is not being complied with. 8. To say the least, the submission is untenable and deserves to be rejected with a note that all these departments are part of the State Government and, therefore, it is expected that these departments which works under the supervision of different heads have a common goal to work for the State as a part of State administration. In-fact, the Departments are created only for the purpose of convenience and administrative exigencies, but that does not give them any right not to act in coordination with other departments. Every efforts, therefore, must be made to ensure that all the departments of the Government concerned with the particular cause should cooperate with each other so that the case of a citizen is decided in accordance with law and without any delay on the part of State. It is hoped that these observations will always be kept into consideration as and when a case where more than one departments of the State is involved for ensuring compliance of Court’s order. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents are requested to forward a copy of this order along with the copy of the original order dated 2.8.2012 passed in WP(C) No. 3667 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. 10. 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. 10. Subject to the aforesaid, this contempt petition stands disposed of. No cost.