An application seeking a time limit for compliance with an earlier judgment was dismissed because the applicant had not yet served a copy of the order on the respondents, rendering reliance on cited precedents inapplicable.
Application to fix time limit for compliance dismissed; order to be complied without delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010052062019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 914/2019
1:BHUBON CHANDRA DAS S/O- LATE GULAP DAS R/O- KURUBAHI NOGAYAN GAON, P.O.- KURUWABAHIU SATRA, BOKAKHAT, DIST.- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IN THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER I ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 ASSAM.
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
GOLAGHAT DIVISION IRRIGATION GOLAGHAT.
5:THE TREASURY OFFICER GOLAGHAT
6:SRI BHUBAN DAS
S/O LT. LAKHESHWAR DAS P.O. SINAKAN CHARIALI R/O KURUABAHI GAON
Page No.# 2/4
BOKAKHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION
Linked Case : WP(C) 4381/2013
1:BHUBON CHANDRA DAS S/O LT. GOLAP DAS R/O KURUABAHI NOGAYAN GAON P.O. KURUWABAHIU SATRA BOKAKHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM. VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IN THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER I ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 ASSAM. 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GOLAGHAT DIVISION IRRIGATION GOLAGHAT. 5:THE TREASURY OFFICER GOLAGHAT
6:SRI BHUBAN DAS S/O LT. LAKHESHWAR DAS P.O. SINAKAN CHARIALI R/O KURUABAHI GAON
Page No.# 3/4
BOKAKHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.B BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR.J KALITA
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
ORDER
Date : 08-04-2019
Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. N. Upadaya, the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel Finance Department appears for the respondent Nos. 2 & 5.
2. By this application, the applicant prays for fixing a time limit for the compliance of the Judgment & Order dated 22.02.2019, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 4381/2013.
3. Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned counsel submits that unless a time limit is fix by this Court, she apprehends that the respondents will not comply with the direction of this Court. She further submits that fixing a time frame will not amount to review of the Judgment & Order passed by this Court.
4. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in K.A. Ansari & Another Vs. Indian Airlines Limited reported in (2009) 2 SCC 164, the learned counsel submits that the Apex Court held that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a Judgment, merely for the purpose of re-hearing and for a fresh decision of the case. It is also not permitted for the Court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter, which provides a fresh cause of action. In the present case, there are no fresh causes of action and therefore, there is no impediment in allowing the application by fixing a time limit to comply with the Judgment & Order. The learned counsel by further referring to the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Woollen Mills Ltd. & Ors. reported in (1984) 2 SCC 646 submits that the Apex Court held that when there is no time limit set out by the High Court, the party concerned cannot say that contempt has been committed.
Page No.# 4/4
5. On perusal of the application filed by the applicant, what can be noticed is that this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 22.02.2019 disposed the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner regularization of his service w.e.f. the date the respondent No. 6 was regularized. However, in the application, the applicant has nowhere mentioned that a copy of
the Court’s order has been furnished to the respondent authorities and that on account of there being no time frame, the respondent authorities has not taken any action. In other words, the applicant is yet to serve a copy of the Order to the respondents concerned.
6. In the aforesaid background, the two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, in my considered opinion, will not be applicable inasmuch as, the applicant is yet to serve a copy of the Judgment & Order to the respondent authorities. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow the application. However, it is made clear that non fixation of time limit will not mean that the respondents will not comply with the Court’s Order within a reasonable time inasmuch as, it is a well settled law that once a Judgment is passed, the same has to be complied with unless of course, the parties aggrieved files an appeal as permissible in law. Non stipulation of time limit for compliance of Court’s Order would also mean that the order has to be complied with without delay.
7. The I.A accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether fixing a time limit for compliance of a judgment without a prior background of service of the copy amounts to a review or fresh cause of action.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.A. Ansari & Another Vs. Indian Airlines LimitedDistinguished¶32
(2009) 2 SCC 164 · Who else cites this
Union of India & Others Vs. Woollen Mills Ltd. & Ors.Distinguished¶32
(1984) 2 SCC 646 · Who else cites this
BHUBON CHANDRA DAS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
BHUBAN DAS
NELSON SAILO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
