Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010148382025 2025:GAU-AS:9572 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4033/2025 REKHA BARUA TERON W/O- LATE DIBAKAR TERON, R/O- RONGKHELAN, DIPHU, P.O. AND P.S. DIPHU, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM VERSUS ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 7 ORS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1957, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED. 2:THE CHAIRMAN ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED BIJULI BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER (E) Page No.# 2/4 HILLS ZONE APDCL LOWER HAFLONG HAFLONG DIST. DIMA HASAO ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (E) KANCH ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL DIPHU DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DIPHU ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL DIPHU DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 7:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (ELECTRICAL) DIPHU ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION DIPHU DIST. KARBI ANGLONG . ASSAM 8:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AND POWER DEPARTMENT DISPUR PIN- 781006 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M D MEDHI, MS J KALITA,MR S J BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, APDCL BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY O R D E R 25.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. MD Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. KP Pathak, learned standing counsel for the APDCL and Mr. SS Roy, learned Page No.# 3/4 State counsel for the respondent No. 8. 2. The petitioner preferred a Money Suite registered as MS 01/2002. Learned Trial Court allowed the suit under its judgment dated 10.09.2010 in favour of the petitioner by awarding a compensation of Rs. 12 Lakhs to be paid by the defendant. Such judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Court under its order dated 11.12.2013 in Civil Appeal No. 06/2012 preferred by the defendant Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as APDCL). The second appeal preferred by the APDCL registered as RSA No. 103/2014 also was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench in RSA 103/2014. 3. Thereafter, the pending Money Execution case No. 03/2011 proceeded and the present petitioner preferred a petition registered as Petition 165/2023 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, claiming interest on the decreetal amount inasmuch as the decreetal amount of Rs. 12 Lakhs was already paid. Such petition was allowed by the Executing Court directing the judgment debtor (APDCL) to pay an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the judgment passed in Money Suit No. 01/2002. 4. The judgment debtor (APDCL) being aggrieved preferred CRP (I/O) No. 14/2024 assailing such order. After hearing the parties, CRP (I/O) No. 14/2024 was allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench under its order dated 23.09.2024 by setting aside the order 26.09.2023 passed in Petition No. 165/2023 by the Executing Court granting 9% interest on the decreetal amount. 5. The present writ petition is filed primarily to set aside / modify the order dated 23.09.2024 passed in CRP(I/O) No. 14/2024 and to grant interest of 9% on the already claimed compensation. 6. Based on the aforesaid uncontroverted facts, this court is of the Page No.# 4/4 opinion that this writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process inasmuch as this court has also no hesitation to hold that the learned counsel, who is admittedly having 17 years of practice, has miserably failed to discharge her duty as an Advocate and has filed such a frivolous petition, inasmuch as after having 17 years of practice, she ought to have been aware that a writ of certiorari cannot be issued against an order of a Co-ordinate Bench passed in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even after pointed query, the learned counsel insisted that the petitioner is remediless and therefore such a writ petition is maintainable. 7. The petitioner is not remediless and if aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2024 passed in CRP(I/O) No. 14/2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench, can very well approach the Apex Court or even seek review. Even otherwise, a writ of certiorari cannot be issued against the determination made by a Co-ordinate Bench. 8. Be that as it may, taking note of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed. As a deterrent, a cost of 50,000/- is imposed, which shall be deposited before the Gauhati High Court Bar Association and such money should be used by Gauhati High Court Bar Association for training young Lawyers. Such amount be deposited, within a period of six weeks from today and if such payment is not made, same is to be treated as a arrear of land revenue for the purpose of recovery. JUDGE Comparing Assistant