Gauhati High Court
Sailendra Nath Sarma vs Preetam Saikia on 28 January, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010013802020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/31/2020
SAILENDRA NATH SARMA
S/O- LATE NAGENDRA NATH SARMA, R/O- VILL- PORAKUCHI
PATAHARUATOLA, P.O- KAMARKUCHI, P.S- NALBARI, DIST- NALBARI,
ASSAM
VERSUS
PREETAM SAIKIA, IAS AND ORS
THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION
(SECONDARY) DEPTT, DISPUR, GHY- 06
2:P JIDANG
AES
THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
3:JYOTSNA RANI BARMAN
THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
NALBARI DISTRICT CIRCLE
NALBARI
ASSAM
4:SRI B KALYAN CHAKRABORTY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY-6
5:SMT. MAMTA HOJAI
Page No.# 2/5
THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
6:SRI BHARAT BHUSAN
SECRETARY
GOVT.OF ASSAM
EDUCATION(SECONDARY)
DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
7:SRI NARAYAN KONWAR
IAS
SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (SECONDARY)
DISPUR
GHY-6.
8:SRI JAYANTA THAKURIA
AES
INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
NALBARI DISTRICT CIRCLE
NALBARI
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D KALITA, MR. U K GOSWAMI,MS S BORA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D SAIKIA, MR. U SARMA(R-7),MR. N J KHATANIAR(R-
7),MR. D SAIKIA(R-7),MR S M T CHISTIE (R1),MR. D SAIKIA (R1),MR. K P PATHAK,MS. S
KONWAR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 28.01.2025
1. Heard Mr. U.K.Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
N.J.Khataniar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, who is holding the post
of Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education.
Page No.# 3/5
2. This Court vide Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2019 passed in WP (C)
No.3499/2014 had given the following direction, which is reproduced herein
below:
".............Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioner should be
deemed to have been provincialised on the day the other employees were
provincialised. Hence the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are
directed to issue necessary orders within a period of 2 (two) months from the
date of receipt of the copy of this order."
3. The said Judgment and order dated 22.01.2019 passed in WP(C)
No.3499/2014 was given to the concerned respondent in the month of February,
2019. More than 5 years have passed and the order has not been complied
with, till date. The affidavit filed by the respondent No. 7 is to the effect that an
appeal had been filed in the year 2023 along with an application for
condonation of delay, i.e. I.A. (C) No. 871/2024.
4. The counsel for the respondent No. 7 submits that the application for
condonation of delay i.e. I.A. (C) No. 871/2024 has not been disposed of by the
Division Bench of this Court till today.
5. Paragraph 46 of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of S. Tirupathi
Rao -vs- M.Lingamaiah & Ors, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC, 1764
states as follows:
" 46. In exercising its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, the courts in India do
keep in mind the benefit that could accrue to the petitioning informer (if he is a
party to the parent proceedings out of which the contempt arises) upon
implementation of the order alleged to have been wilfully disobeyed; but more
Page No.# 4/5
than anything else, the endeavour is to uphold the majesty, dignity and prestige
of the courts. Indubitably, the jurisdiction to punish for contempt is exercised
when the alleged contemnor, by his action(s), shows extreme lack of solicitude
in complying with an order of court, which has attained finality and is binding
on him. So long a final order passed by a court is not set aside in
appeal/revision or recalled in exercise of review jurisdiction or an interim order
is vacated at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, it continues to bind the
parties to the proceedings and it would amount to subversion of the rule of law
if any party, in breach, were encouraged to continue such breach. An order of a
court has to be complied with and it would not amount to a valid defence that
in the contemnor's own understanding or because of legal opinion tendered to
him, the order did not warrant compliance being erroneous. This Court in
Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah has held that once a
direction has been issued by a competent court, it has to be obeyed and
implemented without reservation; the order of the court cannot be rendered
ineffective on the specious plea that no such direction could have been given by
the court. A party, though perceiving an order to be erroneous, allowing it to
attain finality by reason of acceptance thereof cannot escape the rigours of
compliance. He has to pursue his appellate or other remedy to escape the
consequences that can visit him, should the high court hold him guilty of
contempt. Such a compliance is insisted upon for securing the majesty, dignity
and prestige of the court."
6. On considering the fact that the direction passed by this Court in its
Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2019 in WP(C) No.3499/2014 has not been
complied with till today and the fact that there is no stay of the said Judgment
and Order by the Division Bench of this Court till today, the non-compliance of
the said direction prima facie amounts to contempt of Court. Accordingly,
respondent No. 7 is directed to appear personally before this Court on
Page No.# 5/5
06.02.2025 at 10.30 am, so as to answer the charge as to why he should not
be punished for contempt of court. However, in the event there is a stay of the
Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2019, the respondent No.7 need not appear
before this Court on 06.02.2025.
7. List the matter on 06.02.2025.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
