Dismissed

Dr. Lokman Ali v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Mar 2021WP(C)/272/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court directed the Director of Higher Education to pass an appropriate reasoned order within four weeks, reinforcing a previous order requiring compliance with an earlier judgment, and closed the writ petition noting it was mis-conceived as a contempt matter.

What did the court decide?

Order passed against the Director to file appropriate order within four weeks; writ petition closed.

Dr. Lokman Ali Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Education and Admissions | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010007052021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/272/2021

¶5

DR. LOKMAN ALI S/O MD. SAYED ALI

¶6

VILLAGE GHOGA, PO LAWTOLA, PS MUKALMUA, DIST NALBARI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

¶9

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION SECONDARY, DEPARTMENT,DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR

¶11

HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19

¶12

3:THE GOVERNING BODY BARKHETRI COLLEGE

¶13

TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SK MUBARAQUE HUSSAIN S/O ANADAR ALI VILLAGE AND PO MUKALMUA DIST NALBARI ASSAM 78112

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A R BHUYAN

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU

¶16

Page No.# 2/2

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 12-03-2021

¶20

Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶21

Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed notice for the present need not be served on the respondent No.3.

¶22

Without going into the detailed factual aspect of the matter, we take note of that by our earlier order dated 04.12.2020 in WP(C) 2350/2020, the order dated 16.05.2020 of the Director of Education was interfered.

¶23

From the order of the Court itself, it is discernible that the order of the Director was interfered on the ground that paragraph-8 and 9 of an earlier order dated 04.10.2019 was not taken into consideration while passing the order dated 16.05.2020.

¶24

In the resultant circumstance, the matter was remanded back to the Director for passing an appropriate order in conformity with the order dated 04.10.2019 in WP(C) 7647/2019.

¶25

Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that this petition is mis-conceived to the extent that it actually ought to have been in a contempt petition.

¶26

Be that as it may, as the actual grievance is that the Director had not complied with the earlier requirement of passing the appropriate reasoned order, we reiterate our the earlier order of 04.12.2020 in WP(C) 2350/2020 and require the Director to do the needful and pass an order as ordered earlier.

¶27

The requirement be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶28

Writ petition stands closed.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Dr. Lokman Ali v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Lokman Ali v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biren Chandra Chintey Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Md. Mofidul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Muklesur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ala Uddin Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Md. Saifat Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ashima Chakraborty Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.