Gauhati High Court
Cont.Cas(C)/168/2026 of NALINI SAIKIA Vs RAMEN TAMULI on 18 June 2026
GAHC010054632026 2026:GAU-AS:8907 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/168/2026 NALINI SAIKIA S/O LATE NABIN CH. SAIKIA, R/O VILL- MAJGAON, KHARA ATI, P.O. AND P.S.- TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784001 VERSUS RAMEN
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010054632026
2026:GAU-AS:8907
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/168/2026
NALINI SAIKIA
S/O LATE NABIN CH. SAIKIA, R/O VILL- MAJGAON, KHARA ATI, P.O. AND
P.S.- TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784001
VERSUS
RAMEN TAMULI
CHAIRMAN, TEZPUR MUNICIPAL BOARD, TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Borah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
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.
O R D E R
19.06.2026 This Court has duly taken note of the affidavit filed by the sole Respondent wherein the extension which was granted to the Respondent No.6 in the writ petition has been cancelled.
2. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Page No.# 2/2 Respondent has also submitted that the Department would run the said market on its own ,and if necessary, settle only by carrying out a fresh settlement in accordance with law.
3. Taking into account the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 17.02.2026 in WP(C) No.5076/2025 has been duly complied with.
4. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings stands closed.
5. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that after the order passed by this Court dated 17.02.2026 in WP(C) No.5076/2025 thereby setting aside the settlement made in favour of the Respondent No.6 in the writ petition, the question of granting an extension to the Respondent No.6 could not have been made in as much as upon setting aside the settlement made in favour of the Respondent No.6, the settlement order had become void, and as such, a void thing could not have been extended. This Court observes that such actions be not repeated in future.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant