Gauhati High Court
Cont.Cas(C)/527/2017 of MANAHARI BAISHYA Vs PREETOM SAIKIA and 3 ORS. on 9 June 2026
GAHC010203322017 2026:GAU-AS:8267 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/527/2017 MANAHARI BAISHYA S/O-LATE KUMUD BAISHYA, R/O- AND VILL- SARIAHTABI, P.O- MILANPUR, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM VERSUS PREETOM SAIKIA and 3 ORS.
GAHC010203322017
2026:GAU-AS:8267
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/527/2017
MANAHARI BAISHYA
S/O-LATE KUMUD BAISHYA, R/O- AND VILL- SARIAHTABI, P.O- MILANPUR, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM
VERSUS
PREETOM SAIKIA and 3 ORS.
COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ELEMENTARY, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06
2:BIREN CH. PHUKAN
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
BTC
BODOFA NWGWR
KOKRAJHAR
3:SANJIB KR. BHUYAN
DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
GOVT OF ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI- 19
4:RABI SANKAR BORGOYARI
DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
BTC
KOKRAJHA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A NATH, MR.A R TAHBILDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D SAIKIA, MS. P CHAKRABORTY,MR. M R LASKAR,MR.A
DEKA(R-3),MR. S P BHATTACHARJEE
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
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
10-06-2026
1. None appears for the petitioner on call.
2. None did represent the petitioner on 30.04.2025 & on 31.05.2024.
3. Alleging willful and deliberate violation of this Court’s common judgment and order dated 17.07.2014, passed in WP(C) No. 3200/2007 and other connected writ petitions, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant contempt petition.
4. The concerned authorities have passed an order on 04.08.2017 in compliance of the order dated 17.07.2014, however, it is contended in the present petition that inspite of passing of such order, the benefits have given only to those petitioners who have filed contempt petition earlier.
5. Be that as it may, as none appears for the petitioner, the present contempt petition stands closed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant