Gauhati High Court
Pranjal Handique vs P.K. Tiwari And 3 Ors on 21 August, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010204742016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/366/2016
PRANJAL HANDIQUE
S/O LT. HEM CHANDRA HANDIQUE, R/O NO.2 JAMUGURI, P.O. DIGHALA
HILOIDARI, P.S. DHAKUAKHANA, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM
VERSUS
P.K. TIWARI and 3 ORS
COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PERSONNEL DEPTT.,
DISPUR, GHY-6
2:BARUN BHUYAN
IAS
THE DY. COMMISSIONER
LAKHIMPUR
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM.
3:BARUN BHUYAN
IAS
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LAKHIMPUR
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM.
4:ARINDAM BARUAH
ACS
SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) DIST- LAKHIMPUR
DHAKUAKHANA
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S J SARMA
Page No.# 2/5
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.B J TALUKDAR R-4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : -21.08.2023
Heard Mr. S.J. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr.
T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate.
2. This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience
of the direction of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2015, passed in WP(C) No.
4671/2023, this Court had disposed of this petition with certain directions. The
relevant portion of the order directing the respondents is extracted below:
"On perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that though
petitioner's case was not recommended by the DLC on the three
occasions on account of lack of vacancies, subsequent information
furnished to the petitioner under the Right to information Act discloses
that there were infact vacancies against which case of the petitioner
could have been considered on the three occasions. However, instead of
considering the case of the petitioner, three other candidates were
recommended, one in each meeting, for compassionate appointment.
The affidavit filed by the Add. Deputy Commissioner does not disclose
as to whether there was any assessment of the comparative hardship of
the petitioner and the recommendees in the three meetings of the DLC.
There has to be an assessment of hardship of the rival claimants if the
claimants are more in number than available vacancies and whoever is
found more deserving should be recommended. How the hardship of a
claimant is to be assessed has been laid down by this Court in the case
Page No.# 3/5
of Achyut Ranjan Das Vs State of Assam reported in 2006(4) GLT 674.
However, as noticed above, the affidavit is silent as to whether the case
of the petitioner was considered keeping in mind the aforesaid
parameters. If the case of the petitioner was not considered as was
required under the law, taking the stand that now the claim of he
petitioner has become a spent force would be of no legal consequences,
besides being a self serving statement".
3. The said order not being complied with the contempt petition was filed and
this Court vide earlier order as per dated 10.06.2016, issued notice. Thereafter,
several opportunities were granted to obtain instructions to the counsel
representing the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur. On 24.07.2023, also the learned
counsel appearing for the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur was permitted to
obtain instructions.
4. Today, when the matter is called up, Mr. Chutia, learned counsel has placed a
copy of the instructions before the Court. He submits on the basis of instructions
received that the case of the petitioner was placed before the DLC as per order
dated 24.02.2017.
5. As per the said instructions Mr. Chutia, submits that in terms of the direction of
this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur has placed the matter before the
DLC and the DLC by the meeting held on 24.02.2017 had considered the case of
the petitioner and rejected the claims made therein.
6. It is further submitted that in the concerned DLC the Chairman of the
Committee is the Deputy Commissioner himself. On perusal of the order, in which
the order of this Court the Contempt Petition has been filed clearly reveals the
manner in which the DLC required to carry out a proper assessment of the
petitioner's claim. The assessment required to be carried out by the respondent
Page No.# 4/5
authorities was in terms of the judgment and order rendered by this Court in
Achyut Ranjan Das Vs State of Assam reported in 2006(4) GLT 67.
7. Although the direction of the Court in the order dated 15.12.2015, passed in
WP(C) No. 4671/2023, by the Co-ordinate Bench. Whereby the Deputy
Commissioner, Lakhimpur had directed to place the proposal of the petitioner
before the DLC, considering the fact that the Deputy Commissioner himself is the
Chairman of the DLC.
8. A careful perusal of the instructions placed before the Court in the minutes of
the meeting held on 24.02.2017 reveals that the said direction of the Court have
not been carried out by reconsidering the proposal of the petitioner. Under such
circumstances, the Court is of the view that the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur
has committed contempt of this Court.
9. As the direction of the Court by the order 15.12.2015, passed in WP(C) No.
4671/2023, is a primafacie found to have not been carried out without proper
explanation.
10. Let notice be issued to the present incumbent of the office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Lakhimpur, Mr. Sumit Sattawan as submitted by the learned counsel
that he is the present incumbent of the office. The Registry will furnish a copy of
the petition along with the enclosures on the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, Mr.
Sumit Sattawan, who is stated to be the Deputy Commissioner, within period of
two (2) weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order.
11. The Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur is permitted to file his response as to
why the Court should not proceed for initiation of Contempt Proceeding under
Provision of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule-9 of The Gauhati High
Court Rules for initiation of contempt proceeding for willful and deliberate violation
of the direction of this Court passed in dated 15.12.2015, passed in WP(C) No.
Page No.# 5/5
4671/2023
12. List the matter after three (3) weeks.
13. A copy of the instructions so received by Mr. Chutia is also kept on Court
records.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
