Dismissed

The Union of India and 4 Ors. v. Subodh Kumar Singh

Gauhati HC7 Sept 2022Cont.Cas(C)/477/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a contempt petition filed by N.F. Railway authorities against Subodh Kumar Singh. The court held that the requirement to pay enhanced freight rates was conditional regarding the consideration of representations, not an absolute direction, thus no wilful violation occurred.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition filed by the N.F. Railway authorities is dismissed.

The Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs Subodh Kumar Singh — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010022632016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/477/2016

¶5

THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS

¶6

REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NF RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GHY-11

¶7

2: CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER N.F. RLY. MALIGAON GHY-11

¶8

3: THE CHIEF PARCEL SUPERVISOR NEW GUWAHATI B.G. N.F. RAILWAY GUWAHATI ASSAM

¶9

4: THE CHIEF PARCEL SUPERVISOR HOWRAH RAILWAY STATION EASTERN RAILWAY P.O. HOWRAH KOLKATA WEST BENGAL

¶10

5: THE CHIEF PARCEL SUPERVISOR SARAI ROHILA RAILWAY STATION P.O. DELH

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

SUBODH KUMAR SINGH

¶13

PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNED M/S TIME and SAFE ROAD CARRIERS, HEAD OFFICE AT 19/217, BASTI SARAI ROHILA, P.O. DELHI-35, BRANCH OFFICE AT SUKHDEO BHAWAN, A.T. ROAD, OPP. PANBAZAR, OVER BRIDGE, GHY-1, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.K D SARMAH

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 07-09-2022

¶20

Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner is the Union of India through the authorities under the N.F. Railway and the alleged respondent contemnor is Subodh Kumar Singh. Subodh Kumar Singh had instituted WP(C) No. 1863/2007 against the authorities under the N.F. Railway, being aggrieved by the enhancement of freight rates by 5%. The said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 11.06.2015, by which it was held that the claim of the writ petitioner was covered by the order also dated 11.06.2015 in WP(C) No. 1841/2007. In the order dated 11.06.2015 of the WP(C) No. 1841/2007, it was provided that the enhanced freight rates of 5% be paid but the respective representations against the enhancement filed by the various claimants be given its consideration. In the order dated 11.06.2015 it was also provided that upon the 5% enhance freight rate being paid by the writ petitioner, there was a direction to the N.F. Railway authorities to dispose of their respective representations against the enhancement by 5%.

¶22

This contempt petition is instituted by the N.F. Railway authorities claiming that there is a wilful and deliberate violation by the writ petitioner in not paying the 5% enhanced freight rate.

¶23

We are unable to satisfy ourselves that there is any wilful and deliberate violation by the respondent contemnor Subodh Kumar Singh, inasmuch as the

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

mandamus in the order dated 11.06.2015 in WP(C) No. 1863/2007 and WP(C) No. 1841/2007 is to the N.F. Railway authorities to dispose of the representations of the claimants against the enhancement of freight rate by 5%. The other requirement that before such representation can be considered, the claimants to pay the enhanced freight rate @ 5% is a conditional provision that unless the enhanced freight rate of 5% is paid, the consideration of the representation would be subjected thereto and therefore the requirement to pay the 5% enhanced amount is not a part of the direction.

¶26

From such point of view, this contempt petition appears to be misconceived and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

The Union of India and 4 Ors. v. Subodh Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India and 4 Ors. v. Subodh Kumar 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

Bharati Daimari Vs Mr. G D Tripathi and Anr.

Ananda Deka Vs Sri Siddharth Singh and 2 Ors.

Jiban Ch Barman and Anr. Vs Smti Bijoya Chaudhary, Acs and Anr.

Sathil Deka Vs Borsing Rongpi and Anr.

Habib Ahmed Laskar and 2 Ors. Vs Bibash Modi and Anr.

Smt. a. Vanlalzawni and Anr. Vs Dr. Renu Sharma and 4 Ors.

Adi Ram Saikia Vs Mukti Gogoi and 2 Ors.

Head Constable/Gd No. 821200036, Sri Laksheswar Barman Vs Rajesh Ranjan, IPS

Jericho Detergent Pvt. Limited and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Sunita Agarwal Vs the Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Nirmala Didwania Vs the Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Bidut Bakshi @ Bidyut Bakshi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dhani Ram Baruah and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Manju Taye Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.