Partly allowed

Mitali Barbara v. Dr. Kamala Kanta Nath, Iss and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Jun 2022Cont.Cas(C)/267/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ contempt petition before the Gauhati High Court, the court directed the Additional Chief Secretary to dispose of an administrative appeal within 15 days, noting a prior violation of an order requiring action on a censure penalty appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Additional Chief Secretary to pass an appropriate order within 15 days; Striking out Namita Talukdar as respondent contemnor as wrongly impleaded.

Mitali Barbara Vs Dr. Kamala Kanta Nath, Iss and 2… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010120552021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/267/2021

¶5

MITALI BARBARA W/O SRI PARESH DUTTA R/O PARLEY RESIDENCY BELTOLA JAYANAGAR DIST. KAMRUP (M) PIN 781028 ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

DR. KAMALA KANTA NATH ISS AND 2 ORS COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM TRANSFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:PABAN BARTHAKUR IAS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM TRANSFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 3:NIRUPAMA TALUKDAR DIRECTOR OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS JAWAHAR NAGAR BELTOLA KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI 2

¶8

Page No.# 2/4

¶9

-----------Advocate for : MR. U K NAIR Advocate for : MR J DAS (R-1 2) appearing for DR. KAMALA KANTA NATH ISS AND 2 ORS

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 13-06-2022

¶13

Heard Mr. M.P. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent contemnors No. 1 and 2 respectively being the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam and Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Transformation and Development Department. The respondent contemnor No. 3, Smt. Nirupama Talukdar is being incorrectly arrayed as a respondent contemnor, the said name stands deleted.

¶14

This contempt petition is instituted alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 12.02.2021 in WP(C) No. 452/2021. By the said order, the respondent No. 1 therein i.e. the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Transformation and Development Department was directed dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner pursuant to an order of penalty of censure dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. It was stated that the appeal was filed on 19.03.2020. Accordingly, the direction was to dispose of the appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The certified copy of the order was communicated to the Additional Chief Secretary vide a communication dated 18.02.2021 which was duly received in his office. In other words, the appeal ought to have been

¶15

Page No.# 3/4

¶16

disposed of within 18.03.2021. In being not done so, this contempt petition has been instituted.

¶17

In the order, it was also provided that in disposing of the appeals the Appellate Authority shall also take into consideration the case of Smt. Nirupama Talukdar, the then Joint Director of Economics and Statistics, Assam, whose appeal against the order of censure was given a consideration vide the notification dated 19.03.2020. In other words, by deciding the appeal, the said notification was also required to be taken into consideration.

¶18

Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the Additional Chief Secretary, takes a stand that although the order was passed but the notification dated 19.03.2020 was not taken into consideration. If it was so, then it also amounts to a willful and deliberate violation of the Court’s order.

¶19

Be that as it may, instead of taking a more strict view, we direct the Additional Chief Secretary to pass an appropriate order within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. This order passed as a consequential order in the contempt petition and this time, the requirement be done without fail.

¶20

The respondent No. 3 is concluded to have been wrongly impleaded as the direction in the order of the Court was specifically against the respondent No. 1 therein i.e. the Additional Chief Secretary and there was no requirement for any other authority to do anything pursuant to the order. Further no allegation is made that some other authority through any act is impeding the respondent

¶21

Page No.# 4/4

¶22

No. 2 in the writ petition from complying with the order of the Court. Contempt petition stands disposed of in the above manner.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Comparing Assistant

Mitali Barbara v. Dr. Kamala Kanta Nath, Iss and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mitali Barbara v. Dr. Kamala Kanta Nath, Iss 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

Likha Maj Vs Opak Gao and Anr.

Mofida Ahmed Vs Kumar Sanjay Krishna, IAS

Dimbeswari Talukdar Vs Preetom Saikia and 3 Ors.

Tarun Ch. Dev Sarma Vs Preetam Saikia and 4 Ors.

Baikuntha Lakhar Vs Rakesh Kumar and 2 Ors.

Nasir Uddin Sarkar Vs Samir Sinha, IAS and 4 Ors.

Ershad Ibhrahim Zaman Vs Tankeswar Das and 2 Ors.

Ramesh Kr Das and Anr. Vs Prasanta Borkakati Acs

Renumai Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Anushri Roy Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Shaydur Islam Vs the State Level Committee and 5 Ors.

Sangita Sahu Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Rina Sonowal Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Niren Chandra Nath Vs the Assam Khadi and Vill. Industries Board and 2 Ors.