Lal Fakir vs Manas Das And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 2425 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Lal Fakir vs Manas Das And Anr on 28 January, 2025

                                                                           Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010111242023




                                                                    undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/321/2023

            LAL FAKIR
            S/O LATE SAYED ALI, VILL-BECHIMARI JANGAL, P.S.-DALGAON, P.O.-
            LALPOOL, DIST-DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784514



            VERSUS

            MANAS DAS AND ANR
            CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DARRANG ZILA PARISHAD, P.O.-
            MANGALDAI, P.S.-MANGALDAI, DIST-DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784125

            2:DHIRENDRA DEKA
             CHAIRMAN
             DARRANG ZILA PARISHAD
             P.O.-MANGALDAI
             P.S.-MANGALDAI
             DIST-DARRANG
            ASSAM
             PIN-78412

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A M AHMED, P. GHOSH,MR. M K HUSSAIN

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R K D CHOUDHURY(r-1), MS. L DEVI(r-1)
                                                                             Page No.# 2/3

                                 BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

                                         ORDER

Date : 28.01.2025

Heard Mr. A. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard R. K. D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1.

The petitioner, by way of instituting the Contempt petition has alleged violation of the order passed by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2022, in WP(C) No. 4377/2022 and other analogous matters.

The petitioners in WP(C) No. 4377/2022, WP(C) No. 3656/2022, WP(C) No. 3320/2022, WP(C) No. 3996/2022 and WP(C) No. 3752/2022 had approached this Court, challenging the validity of certain clauses incorporated in the NIT, issued by the Darrang Zila Parishad for settlement of the markets/ghats as noticed in the said Judgment and Order of this Court.

The petitioner contends that he was highest bidder in respect of Bechimari Weekly Cattle Market. The petitioner contends that the respondent authorities had not settled the market in his favour, in spite the fact that he was the highest value bidder in the process involved.

On a perusal of the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 4377/2022 and other analogous matters, it is revealed that the settlement pertaining to Bechimari Weekly Cattle Market was not in dispute in the said writ petitions. Further, this Court vide the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2022 had passed the directions so passed with regard to only of the markets/ghats involved in the proceeding before it. Accordingly, the settlement of the Bechimari Weekly Cattle Market being not in issue before this Court; and the same having not been considered by this Court while passing the said Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2022, the petitioner could not have alleged violation by the respondents of Page No.# 3/3

any directions passed by this Court, inasmuch as, there was no directions passed touching upon the settlement of Bechimari Weekly Cattle Market. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the present Contempt petition was so instituted by the petitioner without there being any direction issued by this Court, which was violated by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that by instituting the present Contempt petition, the petitioner has misused the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.

It is to be noted that the respondent herein, in view of the notices issued by this Court in the matter, had engaged a learned counsel and had entered appearance in the matter.

In view of the fact that the present Contempt petition was so instituted without there being any direction which has been violated by the respondents herein, this Court is of the considered view that the present Contempt petition is not maintainable.

In view of the fact that the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding and on account of the same had caused inconvenience to the respondents herein, who were forced to engage counsel to represent them before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that an amount of Rs. 2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred) be imposed as cost upon the petitioner.

The said amount would now be remitted by the petitioner to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The said amount be paid by the petitioner with due acknowledgment from the learned counsel for the respondents within a period of one month from today.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant