Gauhati High Court
Cont.Cas(C)/189/2025 of DR PANKAJA DAS Vs NARAYAN KONWAR, IAS on 5 May 2026
GAHC010037512025 2026:GAU-AS:6131 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/189/2025 DR PANKAJA DAS W/O- DR. BIRAJ KUMAR DAS, R/O- H.NO-29, MG PATH, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI-06, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS NARAYAN KONWAR, IAS
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.
Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010037512025
2026:GAU-AS:6131
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/189/2025 DR PANKAJA DAS W/O- DR. BIRAJ KUMAR DAS, R/O- H.NO-29, MG PATH, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI-06, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS NARAYAN KONWAR, IAS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY , HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT) GOVT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M DEV, MS P DEB,MS N DEB Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K GOGOI, SC, HIGHER EDU
BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO O R D E R 06.05.2026 Heard Ms. M. Dev, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. At the outset, Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned counsel submits that the order of this Court has been complied with by passing the order dated 09.05.2025 by the Secretary to the Page No.# 2/2 Government of Assam, Higher Education Department. Ms. M. Dev, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the said order is not passed in terms of the direction of this Court and that the respondent concerned has circumvented the Court’s order. However, the fact remains that an order has been passed by the respondent authority concerned and whether the same is in terms of the Court’s direction or not, cannot be examined in detail in the instant proceeding since this Court is primarily concerned with the compliance with the Court’s direction and therefore, the petitioner if aggrieved with the order, will have to challenge the same by way of appropriate proceeding. In view of above, the contempt petition stands closed. The petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the order so passed by way of an appropriate proceeding, if so advised.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant