Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010093122025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/271/2025 PRANTIK SARMAH AND 5 ORS. S/O LATE PRADIP SARMAH, R/O VILL- HEMARBORI, P.O. AND P.S.- JAJARI, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782142 2: NAYAN JYOTI DAS SON OF BHABEN CHANDRA DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DURGAJAN P.O. HARIAMUKH RAHA P.S. RAHA DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782103 3: RAMANI DEKA SON OF LATE ANANTA DEKA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NIZ BARAPUJIA RAJAGAON P.O.- BARAPUJIA PS- RAHA DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782103 4: GUBINDRA NATH @ GOBIN NATH SON OF PURNA KANTA NATH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KHANDAJAN MULANKATA P.O.- MOLANKATA RAHA P.S. RAHA DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782103 5: HAJARAT ALI SON OF ABDUL AJIJ RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SALMARA Page No.# 2/3 P.O. SALMARA P.S. KAMPUR DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782425 6: JIARUL HOQUE SON OF NURUL HOQUE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAJBATAMARI P.O. BAJBATAMARI P.S. KAMPUR DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 78242 VERSUS RAKESH KUMAR, IAS AND ANR THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CUM CHAIRMAN, THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL), BIJULEE BHAVAN, PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-781001 2:CHIRANJIB ADHIKARI THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA) APDCL BIJULEE BHAVAN GUWAHATI-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MR. A K DAS,MS. J GHOSH,MR. H A TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P N GOSWAMI (R-2), MR. P N GOSWAMI (R-1),MR BHARGAV DAS(R-2,1),MR. K P PATHAK(R-2,1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 26.11.2025 Heard Shri S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has approached this Court alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of an order Page No.# 3/3 dated 28.08.2024 passed in WP(C)/4219/2024. As per the said order, the cases of the petitioners were directed to be considered by verification of their documents. Shri B. Das, learned counsel for the respondents has however informed that the aforesaid directions has been complied with and a Speaking Order dated 04.08.2025 has been passed rejecting the cases of the petitioners after such consideration. He has also placed before this Court, a copy of the aforesaid order dated 04.08.2025. In view of the aforesaid development, this Court is of the view that without making any comments on the legality of the Speaking Order, the order in question appears to be substantially complied with. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to challenge the legality of the order dated 04.08.2025 in an appropriate case. The order dated 04.08.2025 is made part of the records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant