Gauhati High Court
Cont.Cas(C)/582/2025 of SAFIKUL IALAM Vs ASHOK DEY CHOUDHARY on 14 May 2026
GAHC010247532025 2026:GAU-AS:6774 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/582/2025 SAFIKUL IALAM S/O- LATE JAHIRUL ISLAM, R/O- SUBHASH NAGAR, NEW GHAT, AM.CO. ROAD, WARD NO- 12, P.S AND DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS ASHOK DEY
GAHC010247532025
2026:GAU-AS:6774
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/582/2025
SAFIKUL IALAM
S/O- LATE JAHIRUL ISLAM,
R/O- SUBHASH NAGAR, NEW GHAT, AM.CO. ROAD, WARD NO- 12, P.S AND
DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM
VERSUS
ASHOK DEY CHOUDHARY
THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE), ASSAM, HENGRABARI, GUWAHATI-36, ASSAM
2:SOFIUR RAHMAN MUGHAL
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PHE
DHUBRI DIVISION
P.O
P.S AND DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-78330
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A Rahman, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. RR Gogoi, Standing Counsel.
– B E F O R E –
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.
-ORDER-
15.05.2026 Heard Mr. A Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. RR Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PHE. [2] Thepresent application has been filed alleging willful and deliberate violation to the order passed by the learned co-ordinate Bench, dated 28.10.2024 passed in WP(C) 2206/2022. [3] From a perusal of the order dated 28.10.2024, it is seen that the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the respondent authorities to verify the claim of the petitioner and release the pending bill amount, if so entitled in accordance with law within a period of 3 (three) months from the date,the certified copy of the order is served. [4] It is also seen that in pursuance thereto, an exercise was carried out for carrying out the said verification exercise, whereby it was found that there were various deficiencies in the documents and as such, the demand proposal was returned. The deficiencies have been mentioned at Annexure-A to the affidavit, so filed by the respondent No. 1. [5] Considering that the verification cannot be carried out on account of various deficiencies, it is the opinion of this Court that the present contempt petition cannot be proceededwith, inasmuch as, thereis nowillful and deliberate violation to the order dated 28.10.2024 passed in WP(C) 2206/2022. [6] In that view of the matter, the contempt petition stands closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail other remedies, if so advised, as per law.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant