Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010170842019 2025:GAU-AS:18 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/412/2019 M/S. J. DEEP CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 61, BASISTHA CHARIALI, GUWAHATI-29, ASSAM, AT PRESENT CARRYING ON BUSINESS FROM 38, AKHAURA ROAD, AGARTALA-799001, TRIPURA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIOTOR SHRI JOYDEEP ROY BARMAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. VERSUS P.N.DAS, ACS AND ANR. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF FISHERIES, GUWAHATI-781016 2:SRI N. K. DEBNATH ACS DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM MEEN BHAWAN GOPINATH NAGAR GUWAHATI-781016 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Dhar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Deuri, Govt. Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Page No.# 2/4 Date : 03.01.2025 Heard Mr. A. Dhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. B. Deuri, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2. 2. The instant contempt application has been filed alleging willful and deliberate violation to the order dated 01.02.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 2061/2015. 3. For the purpose of adjudication of the instant contempt proceedings, it is relevant to take note of the directions which were passed by this Court which is at Paragraph No. 8 and the same is reproduced herein under: “8. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to direct the respondent No. 2 i.e., the Director of Fisheries, Assam to directed to treat the un-certified delivery challan as valid under exceptional circumstances in this case because the concerned District Fisheries Development Officer, Karbi Anglong had not complied with the direction issued by the Deputy Director of Fisheries (FSF), Assam vide letter dated 08.05.2013 and accordingly, the said respondent No. 2 shall carry out the exercise of verification of the claim of the petitioner within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,35,613/-, if found due, should be released to the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months thereafter”. 4. From a perusal of the above order, it is seen that there was a direction given to the respondent No. 2 in the writ petition to carry out the exercise of verification as regards the claim of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,35,613/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Thirteen), and if found due, the same be released to the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) Page No.# 3/4 months thereafter. 5. It has been submitted by Mr. A. Dhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 1,35,613/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Thirteen) included the amount of Rs. 51,800/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand Eight Hundred) which was deposited by the petitioner as a Performance Security by way of a Bank Draft dated 07.12.2009. The learned counsel further submitted that on inquiry it could be learned that the said bank draft was never encashed. 6. Be that as it may, the learned counsel submitted that in the meantime pursuant to the order being passed by this Court an amount of Rs.42,950/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty) and Rs. 40,863/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Three) have been duly paid to the petitioner. He, however, submitted that taking into account the said amount which has been paid, the only amount which was remaining to be paid was Rs.51,800/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand Eight Hundred) which was paid by way of a bank draft. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Respondent Authorities have issued a communication to the effect that the said Bank Draft was sent to the petitioner. However, the petitioner has not received the same. 7. This Court has duly heard Mr. B. Deuri, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 who submitted that as there is an allegation that the Bank Draft had been misplaced, the Respondent Authorities are not adverse to take appropriate steps, if the petitioner submits an application before the Director of Fisheries for issuance of a certificate to the Axis Bank that the Bank Draft was never encashed, so that the petitioner would be in a position to take appropriate steps in that regard. Page No.# 4/4 8. In that view of the matter, it is the opinion of this Court that nothing further remains in the instant contempt proceedings for which the contempt proceedings stands dropped. 9. The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps as submitted by the counsel for the respondent. JUDGE Comparing Assistant