Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23658 (GAU)

Krishan Kumar and Anr. v. Sh H.L.Rinmawia and 3 Ors.

I.A.(Civil)/205/2025 · 2025-11-17

Rajesh Mazumdar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC030007562025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/205/2025 Krishan Kumar and Anr. Managing Director, National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL), Address Tower A, World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar Market, Block G, Nauroji Nagar, Safdharjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029 VERSUS Sh H.L.Rinmawia and 3 Ors. R/b Biakthansanga, R/o Pawlrang Saitual District Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Valentina Laldinpuii BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR' JUDGMENT / ORDER Date : 18-11-2025 This application has been filed by the applicant who appears as the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the contempt petition. 2. It is the stand of the applicants that the order of which violation has been alleged had required the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 in the writ petition to refund the cess amount deducted from the compensation amount to be received by the petitioners within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of Page No.# 2/2 receipt of a certified copy of the order passed in W.P(C) No 1/2024. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that they have already paid up the total amount awarded by the Kala and therefore, no directions were passed in the writ petition requiring them to do anything further in the matter. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party in this I.A. (C)/petitioner in the contempt petition has submitted that in fact, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are not required to do anything further in compliance with the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 1/2024. 5. In view of submissions made and after perusal of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 1/2024, this Court finds that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have not committed any willful disobedience or violation of the Court’s order. 6. Accordingly, the two respondents namely, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are discharged from this contempt case. 7. I.A(C) stands disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant