Dismissed

Hmingthansiama v. Smt Renu Sharma, State of Mizoram r/b Chief Secretary and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Mar 2023Cont.Cas(C)/16/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application alleging willful disobedience of court orders regarding suspended construction works, the High Court found that since the parent writ petition became infructuous due to the work being completed by the department for public interest before the hearing, there was no deliberate disobedience to justify contempt.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition No.16/2022 stands dismissed and disposed.

Hmingthansiama Vs Smt Renu Sharma, State of Mizoram r/b… — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC030003202020

¶3

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

¶4

Case : Cont.Cas(C)/16/2022

¶5

Hmingthansiama Dinthar Aizawl Mizoram VERSUS Smt Renu Sharma State of Mizoram r/b Chief Secretary and 8 Ors. Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl 2:Sh Er.Bowman Engineer-in-Chief PWD Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl 3:Sh JC Lalramthanga Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram PWD Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl 4:Sh J.Zothanpuia Chief Engineer PWD (Buildings) Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl 5:Sh Lalnunzira Executive Engineer PWD (Electrical Division)

¶6

Page No.# 2/3

¶7

Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga Advocate for the Respondent : Mr C Zoramchhana for R1 to R8

¶9

Linked Case No. : WP(C)/90/2020

¶10

Hmingthansiama Dinthar Aizawl Mizoram

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

State of Mizoram and 7 Ors. Aizawl

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga Advocate for the Respondent : Mr C Zoramchhana (Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram

¶14

B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG O R D E R

¶15

09.03.2023

¶16

(Thursday)

¶17

Heard Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for the petitioner alongwith Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶18

This contempt application was filed for the alleged willful and deliberate disobedience and violation of the order dated 26.10.2020 and the order 14.11.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.(C)No. 90/2020.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the Order passed by this Court directing the respondents including the respondent No.8 to stop all ongoing works even if it has started, the respondents had continued with the works and completed the 25% of the remaining works which is in violation of this Court orders dated 26.10.2020 and 14.11.2020.

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand mentions that since the writ petition itself has been disposed on becoming infructuous, any contempt arising out of the said infructuous writ petition cannot be contempt. He further submits that the decision to complete the 25% of the remaining works by the department was due to the oncoming Budget Session and State Government had taken a policy decision to complete the remaining departmental works, which was in the interest of public.

¶22

Having heard both the parties, this court finds that considering the fact that the W.P. (C) No.90/2020 has been disposed since the matter has become infructuous, wherein the Installation of the works was already completed on 16.02.2021 and for which the writ petition itself has become infructuous. This court also finds that 25% of the works was completed departmentally and the writ petition out of which the contempt petition arose is with regards to the restricted tender and the works which was allotted to respondent No.8 and it is seen that it is not the respondent No.8 who had continued the remaining works but it was done departmentally due to the urgency of the matter since the Session was to commence from 23^rd Feb. 2021. Thus considering the nature and the circumstances under which the works had been completed, this court finds that there is no deliberate and willful disobedience of this court’s order.

¶23

In view of the above, the Contempt Petition No.16/2022 stands dismissed and disposed.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Hmingthansiama v. Smt Renu Sharma, State of Mizoram r/b Chief Secretary and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hmingthansiama v. Smt Renu Sharma, State of Mizoram r/b Chief Secretary and 8 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

Ajit Sonowal Vs Samir Sinha and 2 Ors.

Shamim Sultana Sumon Vs Smti. Monalisha Goswami, IAS

Debajyoti Bhuyan Vs Monimala Phukan Borthakur

Lalit Kumar Singh Vs Deepak Kumar Gupta

Gautam Kumar Baishya Vs Sri Shamsher Singh and Ors.

Dharmeswar Deka Vs Madhab Chandra Deka

Bidut Bakshi @ Bidyut Bakshi Vs Maria Tanim

Rana Pratap Sarmah Vs Rajesh Prasad, IAS and 6 Ors.

Pc Zakhuma Vs Pb Lungmuana (L) r/b Legal Representative Smt. Lalthathangii

Zachhungi Vs Lalnunmawii

K.Sako and 49 Ors. Vs Sh Subhash Sharma and 9 Ors.

Gulsogi Chakma and 4 Ors. Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Hmingthansiama Vs State of Mizoram and 7 Ors.

Sh. Zaro Vs The State of Mizoram and 2 Ors.