Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010000432024 2026:GAU-AS:1574 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)(Suo Moto)/1/2024 XXXX XXX VERSUS IN RE- APURBA KUMAR NATH S/O SURENDRA NATH, VILL- PRAFULLA NAGAR, P.O. AND P.S.- MANGALDAI, DIST- DARRANG, PIN-784125 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G BAISHYA (SC, GHC), Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 06/02/2026 1. Heard Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G Baishya, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This contempt petition is registered based on an order dated 8-12-2023, passed in WPC 5769-2016. Page No.# 2/6 3. The writ petitioner in the connected writ petition raised a grievance that the petitioner’s father, Late Surendra Nath, while working as a VDO Driver under the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Darrang, died in harness on 23.05.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 23.05.2003 for appointment on compassionate grounds. The case of the petitioner was considered by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 13.08.2008 and approved for the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. However, despite the State Level Committee's approval, the petitioner has not been appointed. 4. It was also contended that the Additional Director General of Police (A), Assam had written a letter on 01.11.2011 addressed to the under secretary to the Government of Assam, Home (A) Department, Dispur, Guwahati furnishing the vacancy position of Junior Assistant in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Darrang, Mangaldai along with a copy of the application submitted by the petitioner with regard to appointment on compassionate ground. By the said letter, a request was made to issue the necessary instructions for the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds, as approved by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 13.08.2008. Another letter dated 15.10.2012 was written by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home (A), Department, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Darrang, Mangaldoi/respondent No.5, requesting to show a vacant post as per the age and qualification of the petitioner, who has been recommended by Page No.# 3/6 the State Level Committee immediately to the Assam Police Headquarter. Consequently, the respondent No.5, by letter dated 20.10.2012, addressed to the Additional Director General of Police (A), Assam Police Headquarter submitted the required information in Format I & II for appointment on compassionate ground in respect of the petitioner. In the format submitted along with the letter dated 15.10.2012, one non-gazetted post is shown as vacant with the remark “justified”. However, despite the submission of the required information, no appointment order has been issued to the petitioner. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3/the Director General of Police, Assam, Guwahati to take appropriate action in terms of the communication dated 01.11.2011, 15.10.2012 and 20.10.2012, and thereafter, issued appointment order to the petitioner at the earliest but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 6. Such an order was recalled under an order dated 30.08.2022, in Review Petition No.69/2019. In the proceeding, the respondents took a stand that the appointment orders were issued to the petitioner; however, he declined to accept such appointment as he had already joined a post of Junior Assistant in Bongaigaon district. However, in a reply affidavit, the petitioner took a stand that such a stand of the respondents is misleading, with a specific contention that he had never informed the authorities that he could not join as per his order of appointment. 7. When this court sought the original letter purportedly Page No.# 4/6 sent by the petitioner, it was contended by the respondents that the original letter cannot be traced in the relevant files. Accordingly, the Xerox copy was sent by this court to the Forensic authority for examination, with a direction to the petitioner to provide a sample signature. It was further directed that the State Crime Investigation Department make an enquiry and submit a report before the court. 8. After perusal of the CID report, which suggested that the petitioner joined as a Surveillance Worker on 19-09-2013 but was controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a further CID enquiry was directed. Based on the subsequent enquiry report, which affirmed the joining of the petitioner under the Director of Health Services and the matching of his signature in the service book, the Contempt Petition was directed to be registered. 9. What is discernible is that the Coordinate Bench, while directing to register this Suo Moto contempt, was of the prima facie view that certain statements made by the petitioner in the proceeding are demonstrably false and constitute an abuse of the process of the court. It was opined that such statements were prima facie contrary to the documentary record which are produced in the writ proceeding. 10. However, it is well settled that every incorrect or even false statement made in an affidavit does not ipso facto amount to contempt/criminal contempt. 11. To attract jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, there must be a clear case of interference or a real Page No.# 5/6 and substantial tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. 12. For a Civil contempt, there must be willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, Writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. 13. This court also records that a mere finding of false affidavit without the court having acted upon it, or the justice process being actually obstructed, does not ipso facto amount to a criminal contempt. Actual or substantial interference with the administration of justice or a real tendency to pollute the stream of justice is sine qua non. 14. In the present case, the writ proceedings are ongoing; the court has not acted upon the false statements, and the respondents are afforded full opportunity to controvert them. The alleged falsity can be tested during the adjudication of the writ petition. The falsehood in the present case can be exposed in adjudication; the judicial process has sufficient inbuilt safeguards to address falsehood during the proceedings. 15. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, in such circumstances, invocation of contempt jurisdiction would be premature. 16. This court also takes note that section 340 CRPC/BNSS, empowers the court to direct prosecution for offences relating to giving or fabricating false evidence, and such jurisdiction is to be exercised with circumspection and only when the court forms an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to do so. Such Page No.# 6/6 satisfaction ordinarily follows a clear and conscious finding that a deliberate and material falsehood has been made on oath. 17. At this interlocutory stage, when the issues are yet to be finally determined in the writ proceeding, this court is not inclined to record any conclusive finding so as to leave the question open. In the totality of the matter, and given the settled proposition of law, this court is of the opinion that no contempt is made out. 18. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty, during the course of final hearing that the statements made in the affidavit are factually incorrect and deliberately showed and in the event, upon such appreciation of evidence and pleadings, the court comes to finding that a material false statement has been made knowingly, it shall always remain for the court adjudicating the matter to consider appropriate action in accordance with law including under section 340(1)-379 Cr.P.C/BNSS. 19. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed. 20. The observations made herein shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the rival factual contentions raised in the Writ Petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant