Dismissed

Maksida Begum v. Hemanta Narzary and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Sept 2019Cont.Cas(C)/163/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed this contempt petition alleging violation of a prior writ court order regarding her DOB. The court examined a speaking order wherein authorities found the original DOB entry correct. The court held no contempt existed as the aggrieved party could challenge the fresh order in appropriate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; matter closed.

Maksida Begum Vs Hemanta Narzary and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010056452019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C) 163/2019

¶5

1:MAKSIDA BEGUM

¶6

D/O- LATE RAFIULLAH, VILL- GOALPARA, P.O- KENDUGURI, P.SMANGALDAI, PIN- 784148, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:HEMANTA NARZARY AND 2 ORS.

¶9

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006

¶10

2:BORSING RONGPI THE CHIEF ENGINEER ASSAM WATER RESOURCE DEPTT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003

¶11

3:DEBABRATA BORA THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MANGALDAI WATER RESOURCE DIVISION DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 78412

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHETRI

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B GOSWAMI

¶14

Page No.# 2/2

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 16-09-2019

¶19

Heard Mr. KK Parasar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Goswami, learned counsel assisted by Ms. S Chutia, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶20

This petition was filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of order of the writ court dated 02.11.2018, passed in WP(C) No.7969/2017 by the respondents.

¶21

Matter relates to correction in the date of birth as recorded in the service book of the petitioner. Petitioner is serving as Senior Assistant in the Water Resources Division, Mangaldoi. According to her, her date of birth was erroneously entered in the service book as 01.03.1960 whereas it should have been 01.01.1964. Writ court after hearing the matter, disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 02.11.2018 by remanding the matter back to the authorities for a fresh decision after making necessary inquiry.

¶22

In the affidavit filed by respondent No.2, a copy of speaking order dated 20.05.2019 has been annexed. As per the speaking order passed by respondent No.2, it has been held that the date of birth of the petitioner entered in the service book as 01.03.1960 is found to be in order.

¶23

If the petitioner is aggrieved by such speaking order, it would be open to the petitioner to assail the same in an appropriate proceeding. However, there is no contempt in so far respondents are concerned.

¶24

Contempt petition is closed.

¶25

Biplab JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Maksida Begum v. Hemanta Narzary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maksida Begum v. Hemanta Narzary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iman Hussain and 4 Ors, Vs Rajiv Gauba

Jerome Reman Kerketta Vs Santosh Kumar Mall and 2 Ors.

Shailendra Baruah Vs Preetam Saikia and 2 Ors.

Abu Bakkar Laskar Vs Ikbal Hussain Barbhuiya and Anr.

Dehjur Talukdar Vs Preetom Saikia

Usha Borah Vs Pritam Saikia, IAS

Jonaki Boro Vs Sanjib Kr. Bhuyan and 2 Ors.

Abdus Samad Vs Pritam Saikia and Anr.

Suchitra Chandra Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Boyjayenti Rabha and 21 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 11 Ors.

Paresh Kumar Saikia Vs Ashutush Agnihotri and 3 Ors.

Bangshi Dhar Haloi Vs Nikunja Talukdar

Jahanara Begum Vs Bhaskar Jyoti Mahanta and Anr.

India Brahma and Anr. Vs Biren Chandra Phukan, IAS