Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010131062022 2025:GAU-AS:16042 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/476/2022 M/S MALINA ENTERPRISE PROP. MALINA BASUMATARY, AGE-43 YRS, W/O- LATE MWNTHWR BASUMATARY, TENGAPARA, WARD NO-5, P.O AND DIST- KOKRAJHAR, BTR, ASSAM, PIN-783370 VERSUS 2. SRI AKASH DEEP, IAS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL, BODOFA NWGWR, KOKRAJHAR, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN-783370. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.U. Ahmed, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Bora, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 21.11.2025 Heard Mr. J.U. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Page No.# 2/3 2. The instant contempt proceedings was filed alleging willful and deliberate violation to the order passed by this Court dated 24.11.2021 in WP(C) No. 2950/2021. 3. A perusal of the order dated 24.11.2021 reveals that specific directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, BTC to make necessary enquiries and upon verification, if it was found that the petitioner was entitled to any amount, the same be released in accordance with the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali & Others Vs. State of Assam & Others reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. 4. Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 has placed before this Court an order dated 20.11.2025. From a perusal of the said order, it is seen that though the petitioner had made a claim of Rs. 10,96,14,448/-, the respondents have already paid an amount of Rs. 7,14,18,171/-. It is further mentioned that the petitioner is not entitled to any further payment. The said order is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 5. Considering the said order which is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”, it is the opinion of this Court that the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 2950/2021 had been complied with. Page No.# 3/3 6. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings stands dropped. 7. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that the dropping of the instant contempt proceedings shall not prejudice the petitioner to assail the order dated 20.11.2025, if so advised. In addition to that, the petitioner shall also be at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court, if permissible under law, for claiming the remaining amount. JUDGE Comparing Assistant