Page No. 1/3 GAHC010024162026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/346/2026 MS RT HARDWARE SUPPLIERS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR RAMDHAN TONTUBAI ALIAS RAMDHON TANTABAY, VILLAGE DUDPATIL, P.O. LABURBAND, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM 2: RAMDHAN TONTUBAI @ RAMDHON TANTABAY S/O- CHAND TONTUBAI PROPRIETOR OF M/S RT HARDWARE AND SUPPLIERS VILL.- DUDPATIL PART-VIII P.O. LABURBOND P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM VERSUS SHRI JAY SHIVANI, IAS AND ORS THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, JURIPAR, GUWAHATI-22, ASSAM 2:KEERTHI JALLI IAS THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JURIPAR GUWAHATI-22 ASSAM. 3:MRIDUL KUMAR YADAV DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR MGNREGA COURT ROAD SILCHAR CACHAR Page No. 2/3 ASSAM-788001. 4:AAYUSH GARG IAS DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO ORDINATOR MGNREGA COURT ROAD SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM 78800 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M J QUADIR, MR. A K HANNAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 20.02.2026 Heard Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the applicant-contempt petitioner; Ms. N. Borah, learned appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development [P&RD] Department for the opposite party-respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the opposite party-respondent no. 3. 2. The applicant is the petitioner in the connected contempt case, Contempt Case[C] no. 52/2024. The applicant has preferred the instant interlocutory application seeking impleadment of the following person :- Aayush Garg, IAS, District Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, MGNREGA, Court Road, Silchar, Cachar, Assam – 788001. as party-respondent no. 4 in the connected contempt case, Contempt Case[C] no. 52/2024. 3. It is averred that the earlier incumbent holding the post of District Commissioner, Page No. 3/3 Cachar impleaded in the Contempt Case[C] no. 52/2024 as party-respondent no. 3 has since been transferred from the said office and in his place, the afore-mentioned proposed party- respondent has joined and as such, the presence of the proposed party-respondent no. 4 is necessary for adjudication of the connected contempt case, Contempt Case[C] no. 52/2024. 4. In view of such projected facts and circumstances, the instant interlocutory seeking impleadment of the afore-mentioned proposed party-respondent no. 4 is allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant