Gauhati High Court
Cont.Cas(C)/129/2026 of SRI SUKDEV KONWAR Vs SMT KAJORI RAJKHOWA AND ANR on 18 June 2026
GAHC010041502026 2026:GAU-AS:8899 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/129/2026 SRI SUKDEV KONWAR S/O LATE BANESWAR KONWAR, R/O VILL-SILCHANG, P.O.- SILCHANG, P.S. - JAGIROAD, PIN - 782412, DIST. - MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS SMT
GAHC010041502026
2026:GAU-AS:8899
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/129/2026
SRI SUKDEV KONWAR
S/O LATE BANESWAR KONWAR, R/O VILL-SILCHANG, P.O.- SILCHANG, P.S.
- JAGIROAD, PIN - 782412, DIST. - MORIGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
SMT KAJORI RAJKHOWA AND ANR
THE DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE, ASSAM, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI-22, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
2:SMT. LEENA DUTTA
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE
MORIGAON
ASSAM
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-78210
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BORAH, MR. R DOWARAH
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 19.06.2026
1. Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, and counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 20.04.2026, which is being projected as an order of compliance of the orders of this Court, does not satisfy the requirements of law and in fact are based on repetitive observations made in the finding and the decision column. He submits that the passing of such an order may not be in complete compliance of the orders of this Court.
3. Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has submitted that notwithstanding the correctness of the order dated 20.04.2026 passed in compliance of the orders of this Court, the fact remains that the respondents were required to pass a speaking order by the order dated 23.10.2025 and such an order in compliance has been passed on 20.04.2026. He has submitted that the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order dated 20.04.2026 if so permitted in law. This Court finds that the respondents have passed a speaking order pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that there is substantial compliance of the orders of this Court.
4. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to assail the order dated 20.04.2026 in any appropriate manner before the appropriate forum of law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant