Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010036382019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/95/2019 ON DEATH OF HAREN DAS HIS LEGAL HEIR S/O LATE KHUTI RAM DAS R/O TALUKDAR PARA AMRANGA P.O. AMRANGA P.S. PALASHBARI DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM 1.1: SMT. PUTUL DAS WIFE OF LATE HAREN DAS RESIDENT OF TALUKDAR PARA AMRONGA PO-AMRONGA PS-PALASHBARI DIST-KAMRUP VERSUS RAJESH PRASAD AND ANR. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TOURISM DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -6, ASSAM 2:SRI LALIT GOGOI DIRECTOR OF TOURISM ASSAM STATION ROAD GUWAHATI -1. 3:RAJVEE HUSSAIN COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM TOURISM DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:SMTI RANI KATHARPI COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM TOURISM DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-0 Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : na, Advocate for the Respondent : DR. B U AHMED (R2), MR. D SAIKIA,MR. B CHOUDHURY, MR. A K AZAD (R2), MR K UDDIN (R2),MR. N HAQUE (R2), MR P NAYAK (R1), MR. B GOGOI (R1), MR. D SAIKIA (R1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 21.05.2025 No one appears for the petitioner on call. The petitioner has not been represented on the last four consecutive dates also. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The matter pertains to non-compliance of the order dated 15.03.2018 in WP(C) 2727/2013. During the proceedings of this case, many of the benefits, that were to be provided to the petitioner, have been provided. In terms of the order dated 17.02.2025 passed in this case, the counsel for the respondent had submitted that as per his knowledge, the Provident Fund Commissioner had written a letter to the Managing Director, Assam Tourism Development Corporation Limited, asking for the details of the petitioner and his legal heirs, so as to disburse the provident fund to them. Page No.# 3/3 However, as stated earlier, no one has appeared for the petitioner on the last four consecutive dates. Today also, no one appears for the petitioner. This Court had also issued notice to the petitioner on his last known address, vide order dated 17.02.2025. In this respect, the office note dated 03.05.2025 states that neither A/D card nor unserved notice had been received back in response to the notice issued to the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not appeared for the last 5 consecutive Court dates, this Court is not inclined to keep this matter pending any longer, inasmuch as, the provident fund may have been disbursed to the petitioner. In view of the above, the contempt petition stands closed. However, if the provident fund has not been disbursed to the petitioner, the petitioner is given the liberty to approach this Court again. JUDGE Comparing Assistant