Mustafizur Rahman Vs Borsing Rongpi and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010067772023

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/207/2023

¶6

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN

¶7

S/O LATE MUKHLESWAR RAHMAN, R/O FOUZDARY PATTY, KATHMARI CHARIALI, P.O. AND P.S.-NAGAON, DIST-NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782001

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

BORSING RONGPI AND 2 ORS

¶10

CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BASISTHA, ASSAM WATER CENTRE, GUWAHATI-29

¶11

2:JAGADIPAN DEY

¶12

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT NAGAON CIRCLE DIST-NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001

¶13

3:PINKU MAZUMDER THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT NAGAON DIVISION DIST-NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78200

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S S RAHMAN, H. BHARALI,MS B H SHIRIN,MR. M R SODIAL,MS S Z HAYAT,MS B BAISHYA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : MR R M DAS (R-1,2,3), D JAIN (R-1,2,3),MR. C SHARMA(R1,2,3),P. NAIDING(R-1,2,3)

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

09.06.2025

¶20

Heard Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶21

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 27.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 892/2022 and other connected writ petitions.

¶22

By the said order the following directions were issued:

¶23

“ (1) Within 15 (fifteen) days from today, the concerned official of the State Government of Assam will communicate the supplementary budget passed in the last Assembly Session pertaining to the scheme to the competent authority of the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India.

¶24

(2) Within 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of such communication, the Ministry of Jal Shakti to release the amount due under the schemes to the concerned Department of the Government of Assam.

¶25

(3) Upon receipt of the amount, bills of the writ petitioners shall be processed and cleared within a further period of 45 days.

¶26

In view of the directions issued herein above, the respondents to complete the entire process within a period of four months from today.”

¶27

Thereafter, the petitioners filed representation before the Water Resources Department.

¶28

Notices were issued in the matter and the respondent Water Resources Department filed their affidavit wherein it is stated that the State’s share is 10%

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

and remaining 90% share is to be paid by the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India. Insofar as the State share is concerned in terms of the affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Nagaon the demand for fund has been submitted for release of fund of the admitted amount of Rs. 9,92,835/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety-Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Five) only for execution of the works in respect of the scheme “R/S to T/dyke along both banks of Kopili river from Charaihagi to Tuklaitup (L/B), Basundhari to Killing Kopili Junction (L/B) and Chaparmukh Ahatguri Amsoi PWD Road (R/B) including Anti-erosion measures at different reaches” along with all supporting documents. The Office of the Chief Engineer has submitted ceiling proposal for demand for an amount of Rs. 1,98,567/(Rupees One Lakhs Ninety-Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Seven) only against the admitted liability from the available budget provision.

¶31

The learned Standing Counsel for the Water Resources Department also submits that in the scheme itself, the State’s Share is 10% and 90% is to be released by the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India. As such the status of the process for release of fund will be available with the Ministry of Jail Shakti, Government of India which however is not arrayed as party respondents in the present proceeding. They were also not made party in the writ petition being WP(C) No. 892/2022 out of which the present contempt petition arises.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also fairly submitted that Ministry of Jail Shakti was not arrayed as party respondent in WP(C) No. 892/2022.

¶33

Under such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to file necessary representation before the Ministry of Jal

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

Shakti, Government of India enclosing the copy of the order and make a demand for release of the necessary amount found payable to the petitioner.

¶36

Such prayer is not objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶37

Upon perusal of the materials available before this Court it is seen that in WP(C) No. 892/2022, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India was not arrayed as a party respondent and consequently in the present contempt proceeding also the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India is not arrayed as a party respondent.

¶38

In that view of the matter the contempt petition stands closed.

¶39

Notices issued are recalled.

¶40

The petitioner is permitted to file necessary representation before the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India as it has been prayed for, enclosing the copy of the order dated 27.09.2022 in WP(C) No. 892/2022 and other bunch of writ petitions including the WP(C) No. 892/2022.

¶41

Accordingly, this contempt petition is stands closed and disposed of.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Mustafizur Rahman v. Borsing Rongpi and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustafizur Rahman v. Borsing Rongpi and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dulal Saikia and 5 Ors. Vs Niren Baishya and Anr.

Shyam Sundar . Vs Borsing Rongpi

Tapas Bose Vs Smti Kavitha Padmanavan, IAS and 2 Ors.

Pankaj Kakoty Vs Shri Ms Manivannan IAS

Dulal Chandra Sarma Vs Shri Rithwish Kumar Chaki and Ors.

Raunak Hussain Vs Narayan Konwar and 2 Ors.

Sachin Deka Vs Pradip Kumar Dibedi

Tanuj Sonowal Vs Ankur Bharali, Acs

M/S Bharat Trading Corporation Vs State of Assam and 3 Ors.

M/S Bhart Trading Corporation Vs State of Assam and Ors.

M/S Bhart Trading Corporation Vs State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Tarun Daimary Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jyotsna Mayee Saikia Vs Binita Pegu, I.A.S.

On the Death of Pabitra Jiban Baruah His Legal Heir- Sri Samadeet Baruah Vs M/S. Sizzler Retail and Leisure'S Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.