Dismissed

Mostab Ali Sheikh @ Mostab Ali @ Mostam Ali and Anr. v. Dibakar Nath and Anr.

Gauhati HC12 Sept 2024Cont.Cas(C)/489/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a contempt petition filed alleging violation of a prior order regarding land demarcation. The Court held that a new order passed subsequently created a fresh cause of action, negating the existence of a continuing violation warranting contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Instant contempt petition dismissed with liberty to file appropriate proceedings regarding the subsequent order.

Mostab Ali Sheikh @ Mostab Ali @ Mostam Ali… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010186512024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/489/2024

¶5

MOSTAB ALI SHEIKH @ MOSTAB ALI @ MOSTAM ALI AND ANR S/O- LATE RUSTOM ALI, R/O- VILL- GUTIPARA PART-III, P.O. GUTIPARA, P.S. BILASIPARA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783349.

¶6

2: MALEKA KHATUN @ MATEKA KHATUN W/O- LATE HASHEM ALI @ HASEM ALI R/O- VILL- GUTIPARA PART-III P.O. GUTIPARA P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783349

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

DIBAKAR NATH AND ANR

¶9

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, DHUBRI, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783301.

¶10

2:SARI L. LUNGTAU

¶11

THE CIRCLE OFFICER CUM THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER BILASIPARA REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348

¶12

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Hussain, Advocate

¶13

For the Respondent(s) : None appears.

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 13.09.2024

¶18

Heard Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶19

The Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant application under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution alleging willful, disobedience and deliberate violation of the order dated 23.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No.6158/2022.

¶20

Taking into account the above, this Court finds it relevant to take note of paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the order dated 23.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No.6158/2022. The said paragraphs are extracted herein below:

¶21

“ 6 . It is settled that if there is an alternative, efficacious and adequate remedy, then the petitioners should avail that remedy instead of approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If it is a case of simple demarcation, as it has been projected by the petitioners, the petitioners should avail the remedy by applying for the notified public service [demarcation] under the Act first by approaching jurisdictional Designated Public Servant by submitting the prescribed standard application form and by depositing of the requisite user charges. On receipt of such application, the jurisdictional Designated Public Servant shall acknowledge the same and shall proceed to dispose of the said application as per the procedure laid down in the Act and the Office Memorandum dated 21.12.2020 [supra] within the stipulated time period prescribed for the said notified public service [demarcation]. It is accordingly observed.

¶22

7 . The authorities while undertaking the process for partition and

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

demarcation of the subject-plot as well as in undertaking the process to demarcate the contemplated fishery, if any, in the Government Khas land, situated in the Northern side of the subject-plot shall ensure that the partition and demarcation of the subject-plot is completed either prior to handing over of possession the Government Khas land to Kajaikata Gaon Panchayat for the purpose of fishery or simultaneously.”

¶25

From a perusal of the said paragraphs, it reveals that the writ petition so filed was not entertained in view of the availability of the alternative, efficacious and adequate remedy under the provisions of the Assam Right to Public Service Act, 2012 (for short “the Act of 2012”). It is further seen that pursuant thereto, the Petitioner availed remedy by filing applications before the Circle Officer-cum-Assistant Circle Officer, Bilasipara. Thereupon, the Petitioner also filed an appeal under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2012.

¶26

It has been submitted that an order has been passed on 27.08.2024 pursuant to the said application being filed. However, the process has not been completed and as such the instant contempt application has been filed.

¶27

In the opinion of this Court, the same cannot constitute a contempt within the meaning of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 more so in view of the fact that the order which has been passed dated 27.08.2024 gives rise to a fresh cause of action and as such if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner ought to have approached the appropriate authority or this Court by filing a writ petition.

¶28

Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the instant contempt petition

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

for which the instant contempt petition stands dismissed.

¶31

It is however observed that the Petitioner would always be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum or this Court if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2024.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Mostab Ali Sheikh @ Mostab Ali @ Mostam Ali and Anr. v. Dibakar Nath and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mostab Ali Sheikh @ Mostab Ali @ Mostam Ali and Anr. v. Dibakar Nath and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrinmoy Mazumder Vs Moloy Bora IAS and 3 Ors.

C Rosangluaia and 7 Ors. Vs Lalramthanga, Secy PWD Govt. of Mizoram and 18 Ors.

Z Zothansanga and 10 Ors. Vs Lalramthanga and 14 Ors.

Geetashree Das Vs Mamata Hojai

Bhabesh Doley Vs Ashim Kr Bhattacharjee, Acs and 2 Ors.

Mustaque Ahmed Talukdar Vs Sri Anurag Jain and Ors.

Anu Kumar Yadav Vs Narayn Konwar, IAS

Abdul Mazid Talukdar Vs Krishna Moni Das and Anr.

The Assam Pharmacy Council and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Biplabananda Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ismailur Rahman and 16 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Amir Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Putul Sarma Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.