Dismissed

Halima Rahman v. Manindra Singh

Gauhati HC25 Feb 2020I.A.(Civil)/3028/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application, the court held that the respondent's speaking order was not compliant with a prior direction. It allowed the applicant to challenge the order but dismissed the current contempt application, noting that mere wrong decisions do not warrant contempt unless done deliberately to frustrate the court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to challenge the order and file a fresh contempt petition if violation was intentional.

Halima Rahman Vs Manindra Singh — Gauhati HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010211462019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 3028/2019 in Cont.Cas(C) 465/2018

¶6

1:HALIMA RAHMAN

¶7

W/O AFSER RAHMAN, VILL. AND P.O. KATARIHARA, P.S. LAKHIPUR, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN 783132

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:MANINDRA SINGH

¶10

IAS, PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P SHARMAH

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶15

ORDER

¶16

25.02.2020

¶17

Heard Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶18

2. The present application has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondent on the ground that though the respondent had issued a speaking order it was not in conformity rather it was a repetition of an earlier speaking order issued in that regard. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, the direction issued by this Court on 15.05.2018 in WP(C) No.4100/2017 may be referred to, which reads as follows:-

¶19

Page No.# 2/3

¶20

“10. The said conclusion of the Principal Secretary has to be looked into from the point of view of the affidavit filed by the Governing Body of the College wherein in paragraphs-8, a specific stand had been taken that on the given date, the Managing Committee had primarily discussed the question of appointment of full-fledged Principal of the College,however just prior to the ending of the meeting the issue related to lien of the petitioner was also raised and was decided in her favour. But the writer of the resolution having not initially included the said decision, had later on added it in the last part of the resolution No. 3, which resulted in the writer using a pen containing different ink. It is the stand of the Governing Body of the College on oath that on facts, in the meeting of the Governing Body, it was decided to grant lien in favour of the petitioner.

¶21

Merely, because the resolution was written in a different ink in the proceeding book cannot by itself be sufficient to conclude that the resolution itself was manipulated. A further exercise is required to be carried out by the Principal Secretary to arrive at the correct factual position. Another aspect of the matter what is noticeable is that in the body of the application of the petitioner submitted on 23.07.1996 for grant of lien, there appears an endorsement by the Principal of the College that the lien was allowed subject to the approval of the President of the Managing Committee and subsequently, there is another endorsement by the President approving the grant of the said lien. The Principal Secretary of the Higher Education Department did not take the aforesaid aspect into consideration while arriving at its conclusion that the resolution was manipulated because different ink was used.

¶22

12. From the aforesaid point of view, it is deemed appropriate that the ends of justice will be met if the Principal Secretary or the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Higher Education Department, whosoever is the appropriate authority, to give a fresh consideration to the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 and arrive at a conclusion as to whether the lien granted to the petitioner in the year 1996 was legitimate and whether it was actually granted by the Managing Committee.”

¶23

3. It has been however contended that the said speaking order was not in compliance with the said direction but mere reiteration of an earlier decision of the authorities, which was challenged in the said writ petition. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant also referred to paragraph 5 of the aforesaid order dated 15.05.2018, which reads as follows:-

¶24

“5. But what is noticeable is that at the relevant point of time in the year 1996, the concerned college was a venture college and therefore the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation Rules, 2010) was not applicable. It is stated that at the relevant time the

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

Assam Non-Government College Management Rules, 2001 was in force. But, admittedly the said rule was also not applicable as the event of granting the lien had taken place in the year 1996. In the absence of any specific Rules holding the field at that relevant point of time, the conclusion of the Commissioner and Secretary that lien granted to the petitioner was not in conformity with the Rules of the State Government is unacceptable.”

¶27

4. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, there is an observation by this Court that the conclusion of the Commissioner & Secretary that the lien granted to the petitioner was not in conformity with the Rules of the State Government is unacceptable.

¶28

5. This Court in the direction issued referred to above, as mentioned in paragraph 12, directed that while deciding the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.6, it was also required to be decided whether the lien granted to the petitioner in the year 1996 was legitimate and whether it was actually granted by the Managing Committee.

¶29

6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the said speaking order was not really in compliance with the direction of this Court. However, a wrong decision cannot be a subject matter of consideration in a contempt proceeding, unless it was deliberately and willfully done to frustrate the order of the Court.

¶30

7. Accordingly, the applicant would be at liberty to challenge the said speaking order dated 05.04.2019 before the appropriate forum and if there is any decision or observation of the Court that the said speaking order dated 05.04.2019 was issued in violation of the Court's order intentionally, obviously the applicant/petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh contempt petition.

¶31

8. With the observation, the present application stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd/- N. Kotiswar Singh

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Halima Rahman v. Manindra Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Halima Rahman v. Manindra Singh

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

Eusof Ali and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sarat Chandra Sarmah and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bodrul @ Badrul Hoque Laskar and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bipul Kumar Nath Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Halima Rahman Vs Manindra Singh

Utpal Deka Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.