Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010241152022 2024:GAU-AS:828 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/700/2022 HAFIZUR RAHMAN S/O LATE AZIL ALI, VILL.- SORBHOG TOWN TOWN, WARD NO. 3 IN THE DISTRICT OF BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781317. VERSUS ANURAG GOEL, IAS AND 2 ORS. PRINCIPAL AND SECRETARY, BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL, KOKRAJHAR- 783370. 2:BINOD DEKA ACS COUNCIL HEAD DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT KOKRAJHAR- 783370. 3:SHRI AKASH DEEP IAS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR-783370 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR, MR A CHETIA,MR. A BORO Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S BORA (R-3), MR A SHARMA (R-3),P BHOWMICK (R- 3),N.R. SHARMA (R-3),MR A TALUKDAR (R-3),MR. A KHOUND (R-3),MS. N CHOUDHURY (R-3),MS. B BHUYAN (R-3),MR. A K BHUYAN (R-3),MS. R B BORA(R-3),MR. D SAIKIA(R-3) Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 10.03.2026 Heard Mr. H.P. Gowala, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A. Boro, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R.B. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 2. This contempt petition was preferred alleging non-compliance of the direction made in an Order dated 21.04.2022 passed in writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 282/2022. By the Order dated 21.04.2022,a direction was made to the respondent authorities in the Bodoland Territorial Council [BTC] to verify the claim made by the petitioner in respect of the contract-works the petitioner stated to have executed and bills were submitted stating that the contract-works were executed fully. It was ordered that if the bills were found to be due the amount should be released by completing the entire exercise within a period of three months. 3. Today, Ms. Bora has placed an Order no. BTC/Irri-47/2021/77 dated 06.03.2026 passed by the Secretariat, BTC. In the Order, it is mentioned that after causing an enquiry, it is found that the sanctioned orders on which the petitioner had relied were fake and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for release of payment against the contract-works, stated to have been allotted to him, is not sustainable and for that reason, the claim has been rejected being illegal and fraudulent. 4. In view of the order so passed, there is no further cause of action to proceed with the contempt petition. The contempt petition is accordingly closed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order so passed on 06.03.2026, then the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy permissible under the law. 5. A copy of the Order dated 21.04.2022, placed by Ms. Bora, is kept with the case record. JUDGE Page No.# 3/3 Comparing Assistant