Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010219752023 2026:GAU-AS:8564 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/599/2023 SUNIT KUMAR SARMAH S/O- LATE RAM CHANDRA SARMAH, R/O- VILLAGE KHUTIKATIA, P.S- SADAR, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS S ABBASI , IAS AND 2 ORS. THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, AND SECRETARY I/C WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:BORSING RONGPI THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:PINGKU MAZUMDAR THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NAGAON WATER RESOURCE DIVISION NAGAON ASSAM DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78210 Page No.# 2/3 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate Ms. P. Sarma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. R. Deka, Standing Counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 15.06.2026 The instant application has been filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 27.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 1038/2022. 2. This Court has duly taken note of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3 in the instant proceedings. From a perusal of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it is apparent that out of the amount of Rs. 27,04,196/-, a sum of Rs. 11,71,342/- has already been paid to the petitioner. There remains an outstanding amount of Rs. 15,32,854/-. It is mentioned at paragraph No. 7 of the said affidavit-in-opposition that the said amount of Rs. 15,32,854/- could not be paid to the petitioner on account of the non-receipt of central assistance from the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Union of India. 3. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the present contempt proceedings cannot continue against the contemnors inasmuch as there is no willful and deliberate Page No.# 3/3 violation to the order dated 27.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 1038/2022. 4. The said observation is made on the basis of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Jayaprakash (Dead) Through LRs. Vs. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1732 wherein the Supreme Court at paragraph No. 18 observed as follows: “18. Tested on the anvil of the above principles, we find that although the Bank did not effect payment within the time permitted by this Court, the material placed on record do not demonstrate that the delay in compliance was borne out of any wilful or contumacious intent. The explanation tendered refers to administrative hurdles post-merger and retrieval of records dating back over three decades. While such circumstances cannot justify laxity in complying with orders of this Court, the element of mens rea, essential for sustaining a charge of civil contempt, cannot be inferred merely from the factum of delay.” 5. Considering the above, this Court drops the instant contempt proceedings qua the respondents herein. 6. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take appropriate steps against the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Union of India on the basis of the facts available in the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent No. 3 and, if so advised, file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant