Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12911 (GAU)

RIPIN GOYARI v. ROHAN KUMAR JHA, IAS AND 6 ORS.

Cont.Cas(C)/293/2025 · 2026-08-23

Devashis Baruah

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010116222025 2026:GAU-AS:12304 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/293/2025 RIPIN GOYARI S/O LATE DHELARAM GOYARI R/O VILL- BHAREGAON P.O. CHAPARBORI, P.S. BALAPARA MOUZA- PAKA, SARTHEBARI REVENUE CIRCLE, IN THE DISTRICT OF BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS ROHAN KUMAR JHA, IAS AND 6 ORS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BARPETA, P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781301 2:SRI KAUSTAV KALITA (ACS) ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) BARPETA P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 3:DIPANKAR BARMAN (ACS) CIRCLE OFFICER SARTHEBARI REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. AND P.S. SARTHEBARI IN THE DISTRICT OF BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781307 4:DR ILA BANIA CIRCLE OFFICER Page No.# 2/4 SARUPETA REVENUE CIRCLE P.O.AND P.S. SARUPETA IN THE DISTRICT OF BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781318 5:SHRI PARTHA PRATIM MAJUMDAR I.A.S. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BAJALI P.O. AND P.S. BAJALI-781325 DISTRICT- BAJALI ASSAM. 6:SHRI NIRMAL JYOTI SARMA A.C.S. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BAJALI P.O. AND P.S. BAJALI-781325 DISTRICT- BAJALI ASSAM. 7:SMTI. PARINEETA CHAKRABORTY A.C.S. C/O SARUPETA REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. AND P.S. SARUPETA DISTRICT- BAJALI ASSAM Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. RS Chauhan Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. D Nath For respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Page No.# 3/4 24.08.2026 Heard Mr. RS Chauhan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Nath, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7. 2. The present application has been filed alleging willful and deliberate violation to the order dated 22.01.2024 passed in WP(C)No.7539/2023. 3. For the purpose of appreciating the present proceedings this Court finds it pertinent to quote paragraph 10 of the order dated 22.01.2024 as hereinunder: “10. Taking the above fact situation obtaining, this court has found force in the submission of the learned State Counsel that a direction can be given considering the fact that the proceedings is pending in the form of Case no. 690, to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 to bring the proceedings of Case no 690 to a logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent nos. 2 – 4, more particularly, the respondent no. 2 to bring the proceedings of Case no. 690, initiated on the basis of an application filed by the petitioner as an applicant under Section 23[1] of the Tenancy Act, 1971 to final conclusion as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 [six] months from today. In the event the petitioner finds himself to be in any manner aggrieved by the formal order to be passed by the said respondents at the conclusion of the proceedings of Case no. 690, it will be open for the petitioner to resort to appropriate legal remedy as permissible under the law.” Page No.# 4/4 4. From a perusal of the above-quoted directions, it is seen that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed the respondent No.2 to bring the proceedings of Case No. 690 to a final conclusion as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 (six) month from the date of the said order. On account of non-compliance of the above-quoted directions, the instant contempt proceeding was filed. 5. Mr. D Nath, the learned counsel, who represents the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 has produced before this Court a copy of the order dated 22.07.2026 whereby the proceedings of Case No.690 has been brought to a logical conclusion by rejecting the petitioner’s application. The said order dated 22.07.2026 which was produced before this Court is kept on record and marked with the letter ‘X’. 6. A copy of the said order has also been provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding stands dropped. 8. Dropping of the contempt proceedings shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioner to challenge the order dated 22.07.2026 before the appropriate Forum. JUDGE Comparing Assistant