JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. The present case is yet another example where the process of this Court has been abused by taking resort of the Contempt of Courts Act. The provisions of the aforesaid Act have penal consequences and therefore, it is the bounded duty of the applicant approaching this Court to make such approach bona fide and with clean hands. 2. I have heard Shri M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. M.D. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 3. To appreciate the background, it will be necessary to put on record the brief facts leading to filing of this case. 4. The petitioner had initially filed a writ petition being WP(C)/7336/2023 against an order dated 14.11.2023 whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Secretary of the Paschim Mandia S.S. Limited with a direction to appoint another Secretary. This Court had passed an order dated 18.12.2023 whereby notice was issued and an interim order was passed staying the impugned order dated 14.11.2023. For ready reference, the operative part of the order containing the interim direction is extracted hereinbelow: “11. In the above view of the matter, that part of the impugned order whereby the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam has directed to appoint a new Secretary of the Society temporarily in place of the petitioner and has allowed the next Board of Directors to take the decision on the matter of appointment of a new Secretary shall remain suspended, till the returnable date.” 5. The contempt petition was thereafter filed on 13.02.2024 alleging that the aforesaid order dated 18.12.2023 was willfully and deliberately violated. This Court by an order dated 17.02.2024 had issued notice to the respondent nos. 3 and 6. It may be noted that in the contempt petition, several other incumbent were made party respondents. 6. The respondent no. 3 had appeared and filed an affidavit in which some startling revelations have been made. It has been stated in the affidavit that on 30.01.2024 the petitioner had given a letter informing his ill health and to give the responsibility to somebody else till he becomes fit. The letter has also been enclosed to the affidavit. Thereafter, on 23.02.2024 the petitioner had informed his fitness and accordingly, the order giving him the responsibility was issued. 7. The letter has also been enclosed to the affidavit. Thereafter, on 23.02.2024 the petitioner had informed his fitness and accordingly, the order giving him the responsibility was issued. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the outset, submitted that by passing of the order dated 23.02.2024 by which the petitioner was allowed to function as Secretary, the order in question dated 18.12.2023 stood complied with and the matter can be closed. 8. Though at the first blush the aforesaid submissions appear to be acceptable, the conduct of the petitioner in filing the contempt case itself knowing fully well of the letter dated 30.01.2024 issued by him is something which is to be looked into seriously. As noted above, the contempt petition was filed on 13.02.2024 and the letter informing ill health of the petitioner was issued by him on 30.01.2024 wherein he had also informed that as and when he would be fit, the responsibility of the post of Secretary can be given to him which was accordingly done on 23.02.2024. 9. Shri Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as regards the letter dated 30.01.2024, the same has been explained in the affidavit-in-reply filed on 28.07.2025 and in this regard, the averments made in paragraph 3 have been pressed into service. The said averments read as follows: “3. That with regards to the statement made in paragraph 3 and 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the deponent denies the same and begs to state despite the order dated 18.12.2023 no action was taken to handover the charge to the petitioner till on 17.02.2024 while the notice was issued by this Hon'ble court in Cont. case No. 75/2024. After getting the Notice the respondent No. 6 and one Bilayet Hussain, Secretary, Additional Charge, Pachim Mandia GPSS held a back dated Meeting dated 30.01.2024 to handover the charge to the deponent and accordingly the deponent attended the meeting where again on back letter dated 30.01.2024, the signature of the deponent was taken in the blank paper by threatening by the respondent no. 6 and the Bilayet Hussain, Secretary Additional Charge, Mandia GPSS to comply the order dated 18.12.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 7336/2023 and letter dated 27.12.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 5 and as such no steps was taken by the Respondent No. 4,5 and 6 to comply the order dated 18.12.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 7336/2023 till 17.02.2024 when the notice was issued in cont. case No. 75/2024 which would go to show that the resolution dated 30.01.2024 and letter dated 27.12.2023 are back dated and as such the letter dated 30.01.2024 is a product of threatened given by the respondent No. 4, 5, and 6 to safe their skin from the violation of the order dated 18.12.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 7336/2023 by the respondent No. 4, 5, and 6 as revealed from the order dated 17.02.2024 passed in cont. case No. 75/2024 and letter dated 23.02.2024 issued by the respondent No. 5 and as such the respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 has violated the interim order dated 18.12.2023, though the Writ Petition 7336/2023 has been dismissed by order dated 25.11.2024 holding that ‘considering the above, that during pendency of the Writ Petition, a new Board has already been constituted and the Respondent No. 16 to 25 have been elected as the Board of Directors and this court is of the opinion that nothing further survivors in the instant Writ Petition. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands dismissed. The new Board would be at liberty to exercise such powers as envisaged in section 38(2) of the Act, 2017. Interim order passed earlier shall remain vacated." 10. However, a perusal of the contents of paragraph 5 whereby the verification has been made, it is found that the said averments have been verified to be true which are derived from the records. 11. Ms. Borah, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 30.01.2024 issued by the petitioner and has contended that even otherwise, the allegation that the letter was extracted from him by force or being back dated clearly appears to be a misleading submission. 12. This Court has noted that while the learned counsel for the petitioner had made a submission, as recorded in the order dated 24.06.2025 that the letter was extracted from his client under a threat. 12. This Court has noted that while the learned counsel for the petitioner had made a submission, as recorded in the order dated 24.06.2025 that the letter was extracted from his client under a threat. For ready reference, the relevant observations made in the order dated 24.06.2025 is extracted herein-below: “24.06.2025 … Shri Mondal, the learned counsel has submitted that the letter was extracted from his client under a threat. However, till now no affidavit has been filed in that regard. The proceedings in the Court are sacrosanct in nature wherein it is the paramount duty of all the litigants to approach with clean hands. It is also the duty of this Court to be vigilant on the said aspect. …” 13. The reply affidavit was filed on 28.07.2025 and as mentioned above, the allegation is that the letter dated 30.01.2024 was prepared on a back date. 14. Apart from the inconsistency in attempting to make an explanation regarding the letter dated 30.01.2024, this Court is of the clear opinion that there was no reason at all to come to a conclusion that there was any defiance of the order dated 18.12.2023. This Court has also found that immediately on the information given by the petitioner regarding his fitness, the order dated 23.02.2024 was passed by giving the responsibility of the post of Secretary to the petitioner. This Court has also noticed that subsequently, the writ petition itself was dismissed and the interim order was vacated. 15. However, without even going to the aspect of dismissal and vacation of the interim order, the very conduct of the petitioner to resort to the Contempt of Courts Act which is apparently a tactic to harass the Government officials is deprecated by this Court. It appears that the petitioner created a scope to file the present petition which clearly demonstrates lack of bona fide. 16. Accordingly while this contempt petition is closed, this Court imposes a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) upon the petitioner to be paid to the Gauhati High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund.