Meghalaya High Court

Cont.Cas(C)/40/2025 of OM PRAKASH RAO Vs GOVIND MOHAN AND ANR. on 9 September 2026

2026:MLHC:1001

Serial No. 45 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Cont.Cas(C) No. 40 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.09.2026 Shri Om Prakash Rao, S/o (L) L P Rao, R/o House No. 200B, Shivapuram, Basharatpur, District- Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1.Shri Govind Mohan, The

Serial No. 45

Regular List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

Cont.Cas(C) No. 40 of 2025

Date of Decision: 09.09.2026

Shri Om Prakash Rao,

S/o (L) L P Rao,

R/o House No. 200B,

Shivapuram, Basharatpur,

District- Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh

…. Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. Shri Govind Mohan, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, Pin-110001.

2. Lt. General Vikas Lakhera, The Director General Assam Rifles, Laitkor, Shillong

… Respondent(s)/Contemnor(s)

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Jha, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with

Ms. C. Jala, Adv.

i) Whether approved for reporting in

Yes/No

Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication

Yes/No

in press:

2026:MLHC:1001

Page 1 of 2

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. A perusal of the additional affidavit filed by the Union respondent and also on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the only question that remains is whether the disability that the petitioner has can be attributed to the service period of 3(three) years. From the records as produced, the respondents have stated that though there is 13.114% disability, whether the same is attributable to the service, cannot be discerned.

2. In contempt jurisdiction, this Court is only to examine as to whether there is any willful violation of the orders of this Court, and from the materials available, it is seen that the respondents have made an attempt to ascertain the exact nature of the case, and it cannot be said there has been disregard or violation of this Court’s order.

3. In view of the circumstances and the question that remains, it is seen that no contempt has been made out, and the same at this stage is closed and disposed of, leaving the petitioner to resort to other remedy as permissible under law. JUDGE

Meghalaya 09.09.2026 “V. Lyndem-AR-PS”

2026:MLHC:1001 Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2026.09.09 18:33:33 IST Signature Not Verified

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead