Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010224862024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3371/2024 MR B K PAL THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL,SECTOR HEAD QUARTER,SSB, TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS VIKRAM SINGH CHIB S/O- SRI BAJ SINGH, R/O- VILL.- FLORA, P.S. DOMANA, DIST. JAMMU (J AND K). 2:MR AJAY KUMAR BHATTA SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE NEW DELHI. 3:ABISHEK ANAND THE COMMANDANT 33 BN SSB KEWATI P.O. KEWATI P.S. BHANU PRATAP- PUR DIST. KANKER CHHATISHGARH Advocate for the Petitioner : MS B SARMA, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA Page No.# 2/3 ORDER Date : 25-09-2025 Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. A.B.T. Hoque, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, who is the petitioner in the connected Contempt petition. 2. By filing this IA, the applicant, namely, Mr. B.K. Pal, the then Deputy Inspector General, Sector Head Quarter, SSB, Tezpur has prayed for deletion of his name as respondent no.2 in the connected contempt petition. 3. The stand of the applicant in paragraph-4 of the writ petition is that though he has been impleaded as respondent no.2 in the connected contempt petition, he was neither posted at Sector Head Quarter, SSB, Tezpur, in the rank of Deputy Inspector General nor as Commandant and it is also submitted that the office of the Sector Headquarter, SSB, Tezpur has not received a copy of the judgment and order dated 14.12.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C) 30/2015. The further case of the applicant is that the case is related to the 33rd Battalion, SSB. 4. The specific statement of the applicant has not been denied by the respondent no.1 (the petitioner in the contempt petition) in paragraph-6 of the affidavit-in-opposition. Merely, on the ground that the applicant has the knowledge of the appellate order dated 25.10.2013 would not make the applicant as a contemnor unless the respondent is able to satisfy the Court that it was an obligation on part of the applicant to comply with the directions Page No.# 3/3 contained in the judgment and order dated 14.12.2023 passed in WP(C) 30/2015. 5. In view of the above, as the respondent (petitioner in the connected contempt petition) has not been able to show that the applicant was holding the office of any of the respondents in the said writ petition WP(C) 30/2015, the prayer made in this IA is accordingly allowed. 6. Accordingly, the name of the applicant, namely, Mr. B.K. Pal is ordered to be struck out as respondent no.2 in the connected contempt case being No. Cont. Cas (C) 410/2024. 7. This IA stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant