In this contempt proceeding, the petitioner alleged violation of an interim order halting a tender process. The Court observed that authorities had suspended work upon knowledge of the order and held there was no wilful or deliberate violation, closing the petition.
The contempt petition stands closed and is dismissed.
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.# 1/3
GAHC040002802021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C) 7/2021
1:M/s Gumin Enterprise
prop. Shri Martin Taga, village-jomo, Po/Ps Rumgong, District Siang, AP.
VERSUS
1:Dumar Bagra
Executive Engineer, PWD Rumgong Division, District Siang, Govt. of A.P.
Advocate for the Petitioner : Tabit Tapak
Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato
Linked Case : WP(C) 49/2021
1:M/s Gumin Enterprises PROP. SHRI MARTIN TAGA VILLAGE JOMO PO/PS RUMGONG DIST. SIANG AP.
VERSUS
1:The State of AP and 5 Others REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER PWD GOVT. OF AP ITANAGAR.
Page No.# 2/3
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (CENTRAL ZONE-B) PASIGHAT DISTRICT EAST SIANG AP. 3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD CIRCLE BOLENG DIST. SIANG AP. 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD DIVISION RUMGONG GOVT. OF AP DIST. SIANG AP. 5:KALING TABOH S/O SHRI TALEM TABOH (LOCAL MLA/MLA32 A/C VILLAGE MOLOM PO/PS RUMGONG DIST. SIANG AP. 6:TARAM TALOM S/O SHRI TAPUM TALOM VILLAGE BINGUNG PO/PS RUMGONG DIST. SIANG A P. Advocate for the Petitioner : T Taki Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)
BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.MEDHI
ORDER
Date : 08-12-2021
Heard Shri T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has filed this petition alleging contempt in respect of the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C)49(AP)2021. By the said interim order, a direction was issued not to finalise the tender process regarding the NIT
Page No.# 3/3
concerning construction of Helipad and approach road at Molom under Rumgong circle in Siang District.
Shri M. Kato, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent submits that by the time interim order was passed, the work was already allotted. However, on coming to know about the interim order, the authorities have given instructions to the contractors to stop the work and currently, the work is suspended. He accordingly, submits that there is no wilful and deliberate violation of the order in question.
This Court has perused the affidavit-in-opposition dated 01.06.2021 where the explanation has been give. The explanation being a reasonable one, this Court is of the view that there is no wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 23.02.2021.
Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed.
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the explanation provided by the authorities regarding the suspension of work constitutes a violation of the interim order in WP(C)49/2021.
M/s Gumin Enterprise prop. Shri Martin Taga
The State of AP and Others represented by the Secretary/Commissioner PWD Govt. of AP
S.K. Medhi
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
