Jay Prakesh Pegu v. Shri Pritom Saikia and 6 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court clarified that setting aside a 2012 order revived the earlier 2011 provincialisation approval for the petitioner. Instead of punishing contempt, the Court directed respondents to implement the revived order within three months.
What did the court decide?
Respondents directed to implement the 23.03.2011 provincialisation order within three months.
What the court decided
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010132792017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/325/2017
JAY PRAKESH PEGU
S/O- LATE AMBIKA PEGU, R/O- NA ALI GAON, P.O- NA ALI, P.S- PANIGAON, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787052
VERSUS
SHRI PRITOM SAIKIA and 6 ORS. COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, EDUCATIONELEMENTARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:SANJIB KUMAR BHUYAN THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 19
3:KANAKESWAR DEKA DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS NORTH LAKHIMPUR DHAKUAKHANA DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001 4:ARUP JYOTI BHUYAN BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER NOWBOICA DIST- LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787001
5:MRIDUL KUMAR NATH
Page No.# 2/7
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether respondents must revive the 2011 provincialisation order set aside in 2017.
Whether contempt proceedings should conclude with directions instead of punishment.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
JAY PRAKESH PEGU
- respondent
SHRI PRITOM SAIKIA
- respondent
SANJIB KUMAR BHUYAN
- respondent
KANAKESWAR DEKA
- respondent
ARUP JYOTI BHUYAN
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Gauhati HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- Cont.Cas(C)/325/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court