Gauhati High Court
Azhar Ali Md. Azahar Ali vs Gyanendra Dev Tripathi on 27 July, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010092142022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/396/2021
AZHAR ALI MD. AZAHAR ALI
S/O LATE ABDUL AWAL SHEIKH
R/O VILL. UZANBAZAR
P.O. HAZIRHAT
DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM.
VERSUS
GYANENDRA DEV TRIPATHI
I.A.S. AND 2 ORS
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
ASSAM
RUPNAGAR
GUWAHATI 32
2:HIVARE NISARG GAUTAM
I.A.S
THE DIST. REGISTRAR SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
P.O. HATISINGIMARI
P.S. SOUTH SALMAR
DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
P.O. HATISINGIMARI
P.S. SOUTH SALMARA
DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM
PIN 783135
3:ABDUL KALAM
S/O TUFAZ UDDIN SK.
R/O VILL. KANAIMARA PART-II
P.O. KANAIMARA
Page No.# 2/4
DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM
PIN 783133
4:MR BHASKAR PEGU
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
REVENUE(REGISTRATION) AND D.M. DEPARTMENT
------------
Advocate for : MR A ISLAM
Advocate for : MR. D SAIKIA (R1
4) appearing for GYANENDRA DEV TRIPATHI
I.A.S. AND 2 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 27-07-2022
Heard Mr. A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Borpujari,
learned counsel for the respondent contemnors.
2. This contempt petition has been instituted alleging wilful and deliberate
violation of the judgment dated 27.01.2021 in WP(C) NO. 2029/2020. The
operative portion of the said judgment is extracted as below:
"20. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds the Notification dated
06.01.2020 issued by the respondents, by which the respondent has been given the
licence to register the Muslim Marriages and Divorces within Hatsingimari, South
Salmara Mankachar District, to be illegal and unsustainable, in so far as it overlaps
the jurisdiction of the areas within the jurisdiction of petitioner's licence, i.e. within
the jurisdiction of the entire South Salmara Police Station, as it is hit by Section 3 of
the "1935 Act" read with Rule 5 of the "1935 Rules". Accordingly, the Notification
dated 06.01.2020 issued to the respondent No. 5 is set aside, to the extent that the
said licence encompasses the areas within the jurisdiction of the South Salmara
Police Station."
3. A reading of the operative portion of the order goes to show that a
licence dated 06.01.2020 was issued in favour of Abdul Kalam, son of Tufaz
Uddin Sheikh under Section 3 of the Assam Muslim Marriages and Divorces
Registration Act, 1935 (for short 'the Act of 1935') had been set aside by the
Page No.# 3/4
Court on the ground that the jurisdiction vested upon Abdul Kalam by the said
licence overlaps the jurisdictional area of the licence granted to the writ
petitioner Azhar Ali.
4. We have taken note of that by the judgment, there is no direction of the
Court, but the licence dated 06.01.2020 had been set aside. The petitioner
brings on record a subsequent notification dated 12.01.2022 of the Additional
Secretary to the Government of Assam Revenue and D.M. (Registration)
Department, wherein it provided that the earlier licence No. REGN.118/2019/32
dated 06.01.2020 and notification No. REGN.118/2019/31 dated 06.01.2020 in
favour of Abdul Kalam had been cancelled/revoked by the Government of
Assam. But the said notification further provides that a new licence No.
REGN.43/2020/109 dated 12.01.2022 had been issued in favour of Abdul Kalam,
son of Tufaz Uddin Sheikh under Section 3 of the Act of 1935. By bringing on
record the subsequent notification dated 12.01.2022, the petitioner has
instituted I.A.(Civil) No. 1532/2022 in Cont.Cas(C) No. 396/2021, by which a
prayer is made that the subsequent licence dated 12.01.2022 be interfered with.
5. Firstly, we have taken note of that in the order which is alleged to have
been violated, there is no direction or any requirement other than setting aside
the licence dated 06.01.2020. The respondents by the subsequent notification
dated 12.01.2022 had merely reiterated the setting aside of the licence by this
Court by providing that the said licence had been cancelled/revoked. The said
act on its own cannot be construed to be an act of any wilful and deliberate
violation of the direction by this Court.
6. What concerns the petitioner is that a subsequent licence dated
12.01.2022 had been issued to Abdul Kalam, son of Tufuz Uddin Sheikh,
wherein he had been given the jurisdiction of Kharuabandha Outpost under the
Page No.# 4/4
South Salmara-Mankachar District. By doing so, it cannot be construed that
there any wilful and deliberate violation of the order of the Court, but on the
other hand, the issuance of the new licence may also be noted as per law and
may violate the legal right of the petitioner.
7. Without expressing any view on the same, we are of the view that it
would be inappropriate to decide the said issue in an interlocutory application in
a contempt petition, and rather it would be more appropriate for the petitioner
to file appropriate petition against the said notification if it violates the legal
right of the petitioner in any manner. Although it is a position of law that a
consequential relief can also be granted in a contempt petition, but again the
said enablement is circumscribed to the extent that a subsequent violation of a
legal right which may give rise to a new cause of action should not be
entertained in the form of an interlocutory application, rather it would be more
appropriate to file an application under the relevant provision of law if so
advised.
Accordingly, contempt petition stands closed. Liberty is granted to the
petitioner to assail the notification dated 12.01.2022, if so advised.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
