Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040002652026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/59/2026 in Cont.Cas(C)/1/2026 Ajay Kumar Kapur Age: 44 Occupation : Address:Son of Chandra Prakash Kapur Regional Executive Director presently posted at northern Region Airport Authority of India Regional Head Quarter (NR) New Delhi 110003. VERSUS Nabam Tado Age: 44 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Nabam Epo resident of Rono Village PO and PS Doimukh Papum pare District Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : Rakesh Dubey Advocate for : Lissing Perme appearing for Nabam Tado: Advocate appearing for respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Page No.# 2/4 ORDER 06.04.2026 Heard Shri R. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Shri S. Yirang, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1, who is the petitioner in the contempt petition. 2. At the outset, Shri Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that this IA, which has been filed for striking off the name of the applicant, who has been arrayed as respondent no. 5 in the contempt petition, was taken up for consideration on 03.03.2026, when time was granted to the learned counsel for the opposite party to file objection. Such time was extended on the next date i.e. 16.03.2026 and it appears that no such objection has been filed. 3. Though a prayer has been made by Shri Yirang, learned counsel for the opposite party to grant further time, this Court, after looking into the facts and circumstances and also the order which is the subject matter of the contempt petition, has declined to grant further time. 4. The Regional Executive Director (Northeast Region), Airport Authority of India was arrayed as the respondent no. 7 in the original writ petition being WP(C)/455/2024 which was disposed of on 17.09.2025. For ready reference, the operative part of the said order dated 17.09.2025 are extracted hereinbelow: “12. Under the facts and circumstances, the Court is of the considered view that there is merit in the writ petitions and accordingly, the District Collector, Papum Pare District, is directed to make a fresh award in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2013, and as provided in the First Schedule thereto, including the components such as the market value, solatium and interest and additional compensation as contemplated under Section Page No.# 3/4 40(5) of the Act, less the amount already paid to the petitioners, within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. As observed earlier, the Collector would take the market value at Rs.507/- per Sq. Mtr. for making the assessment. 13. It is provided herein that, in making such an assessment, the District Collector shall comply with all the formalities as may be found necessary in this regard. Once the assessment is made by the Collector concerned within the aforesaid time, the same shall be forwarded without delay to the State Government for its approval and the approval should be given preferably within 6(six) weeks of receipt of the award. The approval shall then be forwarded to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, for arrangement of necessary funds. The Ministry shall make the arrangements for fund as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the approved award. Upon the fund being sanctioned by the Civil Aviation Ministry or the sanctioning authority, the same shall be deposited before the District Collector, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh, without delay, for disbursement to the beneficiaries.” 5. Shri Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that his client has got nothing to do with the compliance of the direction of this Court. He has submitted that the order was regarding payment of land acquisition compensation which was to be initiated in the form of an assessment to be done by the District Collector, whereafter the Award was to be forwarded to the State Government for its approval, which was to be done preferably within 6(six) weeks from the receipt of the Award. The approval was then required to be forwarded to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Ministry would Page No.# 4/4 make arrangements for the funds for expeditious disposal and in any case, within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of such approved Award. He has submitted that in the aforesaid directions, there is no role which is to be played by the present applicant and therefore he has prayed for striking off the name of his client. 6. Shri Yirang, the learned counsel for the opposite party / petitioner has however submitted that the present applicant was made party in the writ petition as the respondent no. 7 and therefore has been arrayed as the respondent in the present contempt case. 7. Shri N. Ratan, learned Addl. Advocate General, AP, who is present in the Court, has also informed that the State has preferred an appeal against the order dated 17.09.2025. 8. Be that as it may, this Court has carefully perused the order and its operative part. This Court is of the considered opinion that the present applicant would not have any role in the aspect of compliance of the direction of this Court contained in the order dated 17.09.2025. This Court is accordingly of the view that there is no necessity of arraying the present applicant as a party respondent in the contempt petition. 9. Accordingly, the IA stands allowed and the name of the applicant who has been arrayed as respondent no. 5 in the contempt petition be struck off. JUDGE Comparing Assistant