Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040005722025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/9/2025 Sunday Bagang and 11 Ors Son of Shri Samo Bagang, resident of Village Jayang Bagang, PO and PS Chayang Tajo, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Raja Bagang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Gungnia Bagang resident of Village Jayang Bagang PO and PS Chayang Tajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Gyabe Bagang Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Kasung Bagang resident of Village Jayang Bagang PO and PS Chayang Tajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Aman Bagang Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tana Bagang resident of Village Jayang Bagang PO and PS Chayang Tajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Tayo Bagang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Ropo Bagang Page No.# 2/5 resident of Village Jayang Bagang PO and PS Chayang Tajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Lori Bagang Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tayo Bagang resident of Village Jayang Bagang PO and PS Chayang Tajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Aga Achung Bagang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Gungnia Bagang resident of Village Jayang Bagang PO and PS Chayang Tajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Logo Bagang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Gungnia Bagang PO and PS Chayang Tajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 9: Kamku Bagang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Lungpo Bagang resident of Village Jayang Bagang PO and PS Chayang Tajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Atung Bagang Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tayo Bagang resident of Village Jayang Bagang PO and PS Chayang Tajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 3/5 11: Kameng Bagang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Takap Bagang resident of Village Jayang Bagang PO and PS Chayang Tajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 12: Guruk Bagang Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Sipi Bagang resident of Village Jayang Bagang PO and PS Chayang Tajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Himanshu Nigam (IAS) Deputy Commissioner, Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh 790102 Advocate for the Petitioner : Sunil Mow, D Tatum,Aruna Rai,Ebo Mili,Tado Siga,A Linggi,Chanya Bangsia,Tenzin Chhoten,k N Maling,Madan Mili,Sonam Tsomo Advocate for the Respondent : Subu Tapin, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 19.05.2025 Shri S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioners, who by means of this petition has alleged willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 10.03.2025, passed by this Court in WP(C)98(AP)2025. 2. This Court, vide order dated 10.04.2025 had issued notice, pursuant to which Shri S. Tapin, learned counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the sole respondent. Shri Tapin, learned counsel has contended that there is no Page No.# 4/5 disobedience or violation of the order of the Court and rather, the said order has been complied with, leading to passing of the order dated 02.04.2025. 3. On the other hand, Shri Mow, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the order dated 02.04.2025 has been passed, the same is not a detailed one and does not contain reasons, as was the direction of this Court. 4. To appreciate the rival submissions, the operative portion of the order of this Court dated 10.03.2025 is perused and is extracted hereinbelow. “…8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Deputy Commissioner, East Kameng District, Seppa to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners on 10.02.2025 and the subsequent, reminders and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. 9. It is also provided, herein, that the exercise directed hereinabove, should be undertaken and completed within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy this order. The order to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner, should be communicated to the petitioners.” 5. It, however, appears that vide the order dated 02.04.2025, the respondent has passed an order, which itself reflects that it has been passed as per the direction of this Court to dispose of the representation. Though Shri Mow, learned counsel may have some force in his contention that the aforesaid order is not a reasoned and speaking order, this Court has noticed that in the said order, the background facts have been taken into consideration. Though the order may not be a very elaborate one, it cannot be construed that there has Page No.# 5/5 been willful and deliberate disobedience of the direction of this Court. A proceeding under the Contempt of the Courts Act has to be against an action which is deliberate and willful, and not for anything else. While the petitioners may challenge the aforesaid order in the manner prescribed, the same cannot be construed to be a violation of the direction of this Court. 6. In view of the above observations and discussions, the instant contempt petition is closed. Liberty, however, is given to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 02.04.2025 in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant