Page No. 1/3 GAHC010239972022 2026:GAU-AS:1683 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/693/2022 HITESH CH ROY S/O LATE BIREN CH. RAY, R/O VILL- BORPARA, WARD NO. 5, P.O AND P.S.- BONGAIGAON, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783380 VERSUS ANURAG GOEL, IAS PRINCIPAL AND SECRETARY, BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL, KOKRAJHAR-783370 2:SHRI AKASH DEEP IAS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR-783370 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR, MS N NEWME,MR A CHETIA,MR. A BORO,MS. D MAHANTA,MS. L DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S BORA (R-2), N.R. SHARMA(R-2),P BHOWMICK(R-2),MR. A KHOUND(R-2),MR A TALUKDAR(R-2),MS. N CHOUDHURY(R-2),MR. A K BHUYAN (R- 2),MS. B BHUYAN(R-2),MS. R B BORA(R-2),MR. D SAIKIA(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 09.02.2026 Heard Mr. A. Boro, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R.B. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Page No. 2/3 2. This contempt petition is filed alleging non-compliance of the direction given in an Order dated 25.04.2022, which was passed in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 588/2022. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner had claimed that he had executed a Contract-Work, ‘RCC lining of Main Canal from ch.1656m to 1905.5m of Gargaon FIS [Ph-III] under SCA to TSP’ for the year : 2016-2017. 4. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the Order dated 22.12.2021 passed in W.P.[C] no. 7152/2021. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7152/2021, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent BTC authorities to verify the claim of the petitioner by conducting a comprehensive audit, financial and physical verification, wherever applicable, within a period of 6 [six] months from the date of the order. It was further observed that if a claim is admissible as per established financial norms, then the same shall be processed in accordance with law and as per the Full Bench decision in Tamsher Ali and others vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2008 [4] GLT 1. 5. Ms. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed a Speaking Order bearing no. BTC/Irri-45/2021/58 dated 02.02.2026 [marked and kept as Document ‘X’ with the case record]. Ms. Bora has submitted that after comprehensive audit and verification, the Work-Order allegedly issued under the SOPD [BTC] Fund was found to be fake. Therefore, by the Speaking Order dated 02.02.2026, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 6. Mr. Bodo, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of such Speaking Order, this contempt petition can be closed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to resort to appropriate remedy permissible under the law against the Speaking Order dated 02.02.2026. 7. In view of the passing of the Speaking Order dated 02.02.2026, this contempt petition is closed. Liberty, however, stands reserved to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy as permissible under the law, if the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner by the Speaking Page No. 3/3 Order dated 02.02.2026. JUDGE Comparing Assistant