Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010046302024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/129/2024 DEEPAK SAIKIA S/O LT. BAPURAM SAIKIA, R/O RAMKRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR PANITANKI, NAGAON, P.O. AND P.S.-NAGAON, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS MS. AMBIKA MAJUMDAR THE CHAIRMAN, NAGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD, NAGAON, P.O.-NAGAON, PIN-782001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N BARMAN, MR B DEORI,MS J BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N M DUTTA, MR. S C KHOUND BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 04-08-2025 Heard Shri N. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. C. Khound, learned counsel for the sole respondent, who has filed affidavit-in- opposition on 12.07.2024. 2. The instant petition has been filed alleging willful and deliberate Page No.# 2/4 disobedience of an order dated 11.08.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C)/1734/2017. For ready reference the operative part of the order is extracted herein below: “6. Taking into account the above, this Court disposes of the instant writ petition with a direction upon the respondent No.3, i.e. the Chairman, Nagaon Municipal Board to make enquiry as to whether the respondent No.5 had made the constructions in terms with the permission/approval so granted and if not done, then shall take such action as necessary in terms with the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 as well as the Building Byelaws framed therein under. 7. The said exercise be completed by the respondent No.3 within 2 (two) months from the date of service of the notice.” 3. Shri Barman, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order has not been complied with. 4. After issuance of notice, the sole respondent had entered appearance and thereafter filed the affidavit-in-opposition, as noted above. 5. Shri Khound, the learned counsel for the respondent, by drawing the attention of this said affidavit-in-opposition filed on 20.07.2024 has submitted that the direction of this Court has been fully complied with. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 10 of the said affidavit-in-opposition which reads as follows: “10. That in response to the statements made in Para No. 9, 10 and 11 of the Petition, the deponent states that after receiving the order dated 11.08.2023 passed in the W.P.(C) 1734/2017, as per order of the Hon'ble Court, the deponent through the Executive Officer of the Board, directed the Asst. Page No.# 3/4 Engineer of the Board to make an enquiry and to submit report and after enquiry, the Asst. Engineer submitted his report on 13.10.2023 stating inter alia that the illegally constructed posts over the ground floor of his building are still there. After receiving the said report, Notice was issued to Badal Shome on 20.10 2023 to demolish the unauthorised construction of his building, which was duly received by the said Badal Shome on the same day. Thereafter, the Asst. Engineer of the Board submitted another report enclosing some photographs stating that the posts which were constructed by Badal Shome over the ground floor of his building without approval of the Municipal Board have already been demolished. The reports of the Asst. Engineer and the photographs enclosed with the report are filed herewith. As such, the direction made by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 11.08.2023 passed in the W.P.(C) No. 1734/2017 has been complied with.” 6. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to various photographs enclosed to the affidavit-in-opposition to show the steps taken for dismantling the pillars, which were found to have been constructed without approval of the authorities. 7. Shri Barman, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the pillars pertain to the first floor and not the ground floor. 8. After consideration of the rival submissions, this Court has also noticed that while disposing of the writ petition vide the order in question, this Court has also noted that the dispute otherwise was civil in nature and can be dealt with by an appropriate Civil Court. 9. Be that as it may, from the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition which are supported by the enclosures including the photographs, this Court is Page No.# 4/4 of the opinion that the order of this Court has been substantially complied with. 10. The purport and ambit of this Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is only to oversee as to whether the direction of this Court has been willfully flouted which does not appear from the facts and circumstances of this Court. 11. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant