Gauhati High Court
Lokman Hussain vs Paban Kumar Borthakur And 5 Ors on 31 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010023862024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/75/2024
LOKMAN HUSSAIN
S/O- LT. HABIL UDDIN, VILL-CHASRA NO.1 P.O. SATRAKONARA, P.S.
BAGHBAR, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781308
VERSUS
PABAN KUMAR BORTHAKUR AND 5 ORS
IAS, THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-06
2:NARAYAN KONWAR
IAS
SECRETARY
GOVT. OF ASSAM
COOPERATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY-06
3:NARAYAN KONWAR
IAS
THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ASSAM
KHANAPARA
GHY-22
4:SANGEETA GOGOI
THE DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
BARPETA
ASSAM
5:SAUROB SANKAR
Page No.# 2/8
THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
BARPETA
ASSAM
6:GAUTOM NATH
ONE MAN COMMITTEE
PACHIM MANDIA SS LTD. P.O.- SATRAKONARA
P.S. BAGBHAR
DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 78130
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, MR. A W MONDAL,MR K ISLAM,MR A
ALIM SK,MS. N NASRIN
Advocate for the Respondent : MS. M D BORAH, MR R B GOSWAMI
BEFORE
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Advocate for the petitioner : Shri MU Mondal
Advocate for the respondents : Ms. MD Bora, R-3.
Date of hearing : 31.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 31.07.2025
Judgment & Order
The present case is yet another example where the process of this
Court has been abused by taking resort of the Contempt of Courts Act. The
provisions of the aforesaid Act have penal consequences and therefore, it is
the bounded duty of the applicant approaching this Court to make such
approach bona fide and with clean hands.
2. I have heard Shri M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner as
Page No.# 3/8
well as Ms. M.D. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.
3. To appreciate the background, it will be necessary to put on record
the brief facts leading to filing of this case.
4. The petitioner had initially filed a writ petition being
WP(C)/7336/2023 against an order dated 14.11.2023 whereby the
petitioner was removed from the post of Secretary of the Paschim Mandia
S.S. Limited with a direction to appoint another Secretary. This Court had
passed an order dated 18.12.2023 whereby notice was issued and an
interim order was passed staying the impugned order dated 14.11.2023.
For ready reference, the operative part of the order containing the interim
direction is extracted hereinbelow:
"11. In the above view of the matter, that part of the impugned
order whereby the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Registrar of Cooperative
Societies, Assam has directed to appoint a new Secretary of the
Society temporarily in place of the petitioner and has allowed the
next Board of Directors to take the decision on the matter of
appointment of a new Secretary shall remain suspended, till the
returnable date."
5. The contempt petition was thereafter filed on 13.02.2024 alleging
that the aforesaid order dated 18.12.2023 was willfully and deliberately
violated. This Court by an order dated 17.02.2024 had issued notice to the
respondent nos. 3 and 6. It may be noted that in the contempt petition,
several other incumbent were made party respondents.
6. The respondent no. 3 had appeared and filed an affidavit in which
Page No.# 4/8
some startling revelations have been made. It has been stated in the
affidavit that on 30.01.2024 the petitioner had given a letter informing his
ill health and to give the responsibility to somebody else till he becomes fit.
The letter has also been enclosed to the affidavit. Thereafter, on
23.02.2024 the petitioner had informed his fitness and accordingly, the
order giving him the responsibility was issued.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the outset, submitted
that by passing of the order dated 23.02.2024 by which the petitioner was
allowed to function as Secretary, the order in question dated 18.12.2023
stood complied with and the matter can be closed.
8. Though at the first blush the aforesaid submissions appear to be
acceptable, the conduct of the petitioner in filing the contempt case itself
knowing fully well of the letter dated 30.01.2024 issued by him is
something which is to be looked into seriously. As noted above, the
contempt petition was filed on 13.02.2024 and the letter informing ill health
of the petitioner was issued by him on 30.01.2024 wherein he had also
informed that as and when he would be fit, the responsibility of the post of
Secretary can be given to him which was accordingly done on 23.02.2024.
9. Shri Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as
regards the letter dated 30.01.2024, the same has been explained in the
affidavit-in-reply filed on 28.07.2025 and in this regard, the averments
made in paragraph 3 have been pressed into service. The said averments
read as follows:
"3. That with regards to the statement made in paragraph 3 and 4
Page No.# 5/8
of the affidavit-in-opposition, the deponent denies the same and
begs to state despite the order dated 18.12.2023 no action was
taken to handover the charge to the petitioner till on 17.02.2024
while the notice was issued by this Hon'ble court in Cont. case No.
75/2024. After getting the Notice the respondent No. 6 and one
Bilayet Hussain, Secretary, Additional Charge, Pachim Mandia GPSS
held a back dated Meeting dated 30.01.2024 to handover the
charge to the deponent and accordingly the deponent attended the
meeting where again on back letter dated 30.01.2024, the signature
of the deponent was taken in the blank paper by threatening by the
respondent no. 6 and the Bilayet Hussain, Secretary Additional
Charge, Mandia GPSS to comply the order dated 18.12.2023 passed
in WP(C) No. 7336/2023 and letter dated 27.12.2023 issued by the
Respondent No. 5 and as such no steps was taken by the
Respondent No. 4,5 and 6 to comply the order dated 18.12.2023
passed in WP(C) No. 7336/2023 till 17.02.2024 when the notice was
issued in cont. case No. 75/2024 which would go to show that the
resolution dated 30.01.2024 and letter dated 27.12.2023 are back
dated and as such the letter dated 30.01.2024 is a product of
threatened given by the respondent No. 4, 5, and 6 to safe their
skin from the violation of the order dated 18.12.2023 passed in
WP(C) No. 7336/2023 by the respondent No. 4, 5, and 6 as revealed
from the order dated 17.02.2024 passed in cont. case No. 75/2024
and letter dated 23.02.2024 issued by the respondent No. 5 and as
such the respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 has violated the interim order
Page No.# 6/8
dated 18.12.2023, though the Writ Petition 7336/2023 has been
dismissed by order dated 25.11.2024 holding that 'considering the
above, that during pendency of the Writ Petition, a new Board has
already been constituted and the Respondent No. 16 to 25 have
been elected as the Board of Directors and this court is of the
opinion that nothing further survivors in the instant Writ Petition.
Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands dismissed. The new
Board would be at liberty to exercise such powers as envisaged in
section 38(2) of the Act, 2017. Interim order passed earlier shall
remain vacated."
10. However, a perusal of the contents of paragraph 5 whereby the
verification has been made, it is found that the said averments have been
verified to be true which are derived from the records.
11. Ms. Borah, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has drawn
the attention of this Court to the letter dated 30.01.2024 issued by the
petitioner and has contended that even otherwise, the allegation that the
letter was extracted from him by force or being back dated clearly appears
to be a misleading submission.
12. This Court has noted that while the learned counsel for the petitioner
had made a submission, as recorded in the order dated 24.06.2025 that the
letter was extracted from his client under a threat. For ready reference, the
relevant observations made in the order dated 24.06.2025 is extracted
hereinbelow-
"24.06.2025
Page No.# 7/8
...
Shri Mondal, the learned counsel has submitted that the letter was
extracted from his client under a threat. However, till now no
affidavit has been filed in that regard.
The proceedings in the Court are sacrosanct in nature wherein it is
the paramount duty of all the litigants to approach with clean hands.
It is also the duty of this Court to be vigilant on the said aspect.
..."
13. The reply affidavit was filed on 28.07.2025 and as mentioned above,
the allegation is that the letter dated 30.01.2024 was prepared on a back
date.
14. Apart from the inconsistency in attempting to make an explanation
regarding the letter dated 30.01.2024, this Court is of the clear opinion that
there was no reason at all to come to a conclusion that there was any
defiance of the order dated 18.12.2023. This Court has also found that
immediately on the information given by the petitioner regarding his
fitness, the order dated 23.02.2024 was passed by giving the responsibility
of the post of Secretary to the petitioner. This Court has also noticed that
subsequently, the writ petition itself was dismissed and the interim order
was vacated.
15. However, without even going to the aspect of dismissal and vacation
of the interim order, the very conduct of the petitioner to resort to the
Contempt of Courts Act which is apparently a tactic to harass the
Government officials is deprecated by this Court. It appears that the
Page No.# 8/8
petitioner created a scope to file the present petition which clearly
demonstrates lack of bona fide.
16. Accordingly while this contempt petition is closed, this Court imposes
a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) upon the petitioner to be
paid to the Gauhati High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
