Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4167 (GAU)

Sumnyak Sumnyan v. Debia Polla

IA(C)/27/2025 · 2025-02-02

Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC040001632025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/27/2025 Sumnyak Sumnyan Chief Engineer, Highway, PWD, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Debia Polla Son of Late Tada Debia Neekom, permanent resident of Tapi Village, PO Pistana, PS Yazali, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : Rintu Saikia, Advocate for the Respondent : Pritam Taffo, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 03-02-2025 Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant, who has prayed for modification/alteration/vacation of the interim order dated 29.01.2025 passed in Cont.Case(C)No. 05/2022. 2. By the said order, this Court has issued bailable warrant of arrest against the applicant for his personal appearance and has fixed the date as 17.02.2025. Page No.# 2/2 3. Mr. Saikia, the learned counsel has submitted that the contempt case arises from an interim order, which itself was vacated. He has also submitted that irrespective of the order being vacated, there was no violation of any direction of this Court as the house of the writ petitioner/contempt petitioner was not affected, while constructing the road. Mr. Saikia has also informed that the applicant has retired from service long time back in the year 2022 and this aspect, was somehow not brought to the notice of this Court. 4. Mr. P. Taffo, the learned counsel for the opposite party/contempt petitioner has, however, submitted that the contempt petition was filed as the interim directions were violated. 5. Considering the above, let this matter be listed on 17.02.2025. On or before the said date, the applicant is required to file affidavit. 6. In the interest of justice, the observations made towards issuing of bailable warrant of arrest against the applicant shall remain suspended. 7. The interlocutory application, accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant