Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010029682025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/479/2025 EX TC 62078 RECT BB RAMBIR S/O ANANTA RAM R/O VILLAGE TEONTHA PS. TEONTHA TEHSIL PUNDURI DISTRICT KAITHAL HARYANA-136042 VERSUS GOVIND MOHAN THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI-1100003 2:LIEUTENANT GENERAL VIKAS LAKHERA AVSM SM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ASSAM RIFLES SHILLONG-11 ------------ Advocate for : RAJESH MAZUMDAR Advocate for : MR. K K PARASAR appearing for GOVIND MOHAN Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 03.03 .2025 Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned CGC for the respondents. This interlocutory application has been filed for impleadment of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in Cont.Cas(C) No. 58/2024. Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned CGC appearing in the contempt petition does not object to the prayer made. This contempt petition has been filed alleging disobediance to the directions contained in the order dated 09.06.2022 in WP(C) No. 2225/2016. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the Cont.Cas(C) No. 58/2024, were earlier the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Directorate General of Assam Rifles, Shillong respectively at the time of filing the contempt petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant submits that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had since retired and present opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are now appointed as Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and the Directorate General of Assam Rifles, Shillong. Therefore, their impleadment as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the contempt petition is necessary, as the direction contained in the order dated 09.06.2022 in WP(C) No. 2225/2016 has not yet been complied with. Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned CGC does not dispute the submissions made that the earlier incumbents were respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Cont.Cas(C) No. 58/2023 had since superannuated from the service. Page No.# 3/3 Taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant and also upon perusal of the order dated 09.06.2022 in WP(C) No. 2225/2016, it is seen that the directions were issued to the respondents. The Officers at the relevant post in time who held the offices were respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the contempt petition. Since, it is submitted that the said respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had demitted office and new officers in their places have been appointed, namely the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, the prayer made by the petitioner is required to be considered. Since, no objection have been raised by the learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the contempt petition to the prayer made and also since it is not disputed that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had since superannuated and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have thereafter been appointed in places of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, this Court is of the view that the interlocutory application can be allowed at this stage without issuing notice. Once the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is arrayed as respondents, they will have opportunities to raise their objections, if any. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands allowed. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 namely Govind Mohan and Lieutenant General, Vikas Lakhera are arrayed as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in contempt petition No. 58 of 2024. Accordingly, the interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. The applicant will file amended cause title before the Registry. JUDGE Comparing Assistant