Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010230102024 2025:GAU-AS:13834 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/581/2024 SRI PRADYUT BARUA AND ANR S/O- LATE KUMAR PRAKRITISH CHANDRA BARUA, R/O- MATIABAG PALACE, GAURIUR, WARD NO-2, P.O- GAURIPUR, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM 2: SUBHASREE GOGOI D/O- LATE PRANABESH CHANDRA BARUA R/O- RAJBARI WARD NO-1 GAURIPUR TOWN P.O- GAURIPUR DIST- DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS MR GYANENDRA DEV TRIPATHI, IAS AND ANR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, CM BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:MR DIBAKAR NATH IAS DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI DISTRICT P.O. DHUBRI PIN 783301 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. JYOTIRMOY ROY, MR. R HAZARIKA,MR D DAS,MR. C CHAKRAVARTY,MR B P SARMAH,MR. JAYANTA ROY,B SAHA Advocate for the Respondent : MS G HAZARIKA, MS. P R MAHANTA(R-1),MR. R BORPUJARI(R-1),MR. D SAIKIA (R-1) Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 14.10.2025 Heard Shri J. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri B.P. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. 2. The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by this Court in WP(C)/4962/2022. For the sake of convenience, the operative part of the aforesaid order is extracted hereinbelow- “19. Accordingly this Court in the ends of justice, disposes of the instant writ petition with a direction to the respondent, particularly, respondent No.1 (The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department) to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.02.2022 as per the stipulation of Disaster Management and Revenue (Reforms) Department order dated 20.01.2014 on its merits in accordance with law within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order of this Court.” 3. Though a period of 2(two) months was provided for taking a decision on the representation of the petitioners, that was not done and accordingly, on 30.10.2024, the instant contempt petition was instituted and notices were issued by this Court. Pursuant thereto, the respondent no. 1 had appeared in Page No.# 3/6 this case and filed the affidavit on 18.06.2025 wherein he has denied any willful and deliberate disobedience to the order and has rather annexed a report dated 10.03.2025, which has been passed in compliance of the direction of this Court. The petitioners have filed a reply-in-affidavit on 16.07.2025. 4. Shri Roy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that apart from the aspect of delay in complying with the order of this Court dated 19.04.2024, the alleged speaking order dated 10.03.2025 cannot be construed to be a compliance of the direction of this Court. He has submitted that the order itself is inconsistent, both on facts and law and relevant materials have not been taken into consideration, including the 8 number of cases which were to be separately examined. He has however fairly submitted that writ petition WP(C)/4991/2025 has been subsequently filed challenging the order dated 10.03.2025. At the same time, he has hastened to add that the same would not preclude the petitioners to pursue the present petition as, according to the petitioners, there has been a willful and deliberate disobedience. He has also added that even the payment assessed by the report dated 10.03.2025 is yet to be released. 5. Shri Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that though there was a slight delay in considering the representation, the same was not intentional or deliberate and had occasioned because of reasons beyond the control of the respondent no. 1. He has submitted that the case pertains to records which are very old ranging back to the year 1967 and in spite of all efforts, all the records could not be retrieved. Nonetheless, the petitioners were given personal hearing and the report was made after taking into consideration the views expressed by a High Power Committee constituted by the Government. He has also submitted that the validity of the report has Page No.# 4/6 already been challenged in WP(C)/4991/2025 and as there is no aspect of any willful and deliberate disobedience, the present petition is required to be closed. 6. The rival submissions have been duly considered. 7. The direction of this Court in the order dated 19.04.2024 has been extracted above which was for consideration of the representation. It is true that the contempt jurisdiction of this Court had to be invoked as the said direction was not followed within the prescribed period. However, after filing of the contempt petition, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 1 on 18.06.2025, a report dated 10.03.2025 has been enclosed which also takes into consideration the views of the High Power Committee. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that there was no proper consideration of the representation in terms of the direction of this Court, this Court is of the opinion that without going into the validity or otherwise of the report, the direction of this Court dated 19.04.2024 appears to be substantially complied with. 8. It is a settled law that while exercising contempt jurisdiction, this Court is primarily concerned with the compliance of the order in question. This Court is not required to go into the aspect of correctness of such order of compliance unless it ex-facie appears that the purported action taken or orders passed is farcical or a sham only to circumvent the contempt proceeding. In this regard, it would be beneficial to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and Ors. reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291, which are as follows: “6. … The question is : whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out, whether it is in conformity with Page No.# 5/6 the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may he right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, afresh direction by the learned single judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. …” 9. This Court is of the opinion that the jurisdiction of this Court in a contempt proceeding would be confined to ensuring that the orders are obeyed and not to sit over the correctness of the compliance order. If any party is aggrieved by the compliance order, the same can be challenged in a separate proceeding which, in fact has already been done in the instant case. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there is no further requirement to continue with the present contempt petition. Accordingly, the instant petition stands closed. This Court however, clarifies that closure of this contempt petition shall not cause any prejudice to the petitioners in assailing the report dated 10.03.2025 which has been done in WP(C)/4991/2025 and is pending consideration before this Court. 11. At this stage, Shri Roy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has Page No.# 6/6 reiterated that even the assessed compensation has not been released. Shri Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that the process is on, including consideration of the budgetary provision and the same would be done expeditiously and this is reflected in the minutes of meeting dated 12.04.2025. 12. In view of the above, this Court observes that the closure of this contempt petition would not come into the way of release of the assessed compensation, which is to be done expeditiously. JUDGE Comparing Assistant