Dipali Roy Barman @ Jaya Barman v. Dibakar Nath, IAS and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Jan 2025Cont.Cas(C)/664/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court, Cont.Cas(C)/664/2023, decided 08.01.2025 by Devashis Baruah J.; contempt proceeding dropped; willful and deliberate violation of order dated 07.11.2022 in WP(C) No. 7053/2021 not made out; non-payment of awarded amount and interest; deposit of Rs. 8,08,800/- by NBSTC Managing Director; Bakijai Officer Dhubri; recovery under Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913; additional interest @ 3%; petitioner at liberty to pursue realization; neutral citation 2025:GAU-AS:248.

What did the court decide?

The contempt proceeding stands dropped; petitioner left free to take steps before the Bakijai Officer, Dhubri (respondent No. 2) for realization of the amount as per the order dated 07.11.2022 in WP(C) No. 7053/2021, and respondent No. 2 directed to take appropriate steps in such proceedings. ¶¶30

Dipali Roy Barman @ Jaya Barman Vs Dibakar Nath, IAS and 2… — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 committed willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 07.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 7053/2021, warranting action in contempt.

¶¶19

Court's answer

The allegation of willful and deliberate violation against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 does not arise, since there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner thereupon represented before respondent No. 2 insofar as further proceeding with the Bakijai proceedings.

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is at liberty to take further steps before respondent No. 2, i.e. the Bakijai Officer, Dhubri, for realization of the amount as per the order dated 07.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 7053/2021, and respondent No. 2 is directed to take appropriate steps in such proceedings.

¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt — alleged willful and deliberate violation of order dated 07.11.2022 in WP(C) No. 7053/2021, whereby respondent No. 5 therein (respondent No. 3 in the contempt proceedings, Managing Director, NBSTC) was directed to deposit the awarded amount along with interest before the Bakijai Officer, Dhubri within six months, failing which the amount would bear additional interest @ 3% and the Bakijai Officer could proceed under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913. Respondent No. 3 deposited only Rs. 8,08,800/- without interest after intimation dated 02.09.2023; the petitioner did not pursue the Bakijai proceedings before respondent No. 2. Held: allegation of willful and deliberate violation against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 does not arise; contempt proceeding dropped. Petitioner at liberty to take steps before the Bakijai Officer for realization, and respondent No. 2 directed to take appropriate steps in such proceedings.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010243342023

2025:GAU-AS:248

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

¶5

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/664/2023

¶6

DIPALI ROY BARMAN @ JAYA BARMAN W/O LATE MANINDRA DEV BARMAN, R/O PURANI BAZAR, WARD NO. 7, P.O. AND P.S.-BILASIPARA, DIST-DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783348

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

DIBAKAR NATH, IAS AND 2 ORS THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, DHUBRI, PIN-783301

¶9

2:PRANJOL KR. DAS THE BAKIJAI OFFICER DHUBRI PIN-783301

¶10

3:DIPANKAR PIPLAI MANAGING DIRECTOR NORTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (NBSTC) PARIBAHAN BHAWAN SAGAR DIGHI WEST P.O. P.S. AND DIST-COOCH BEHAR WEST BENGAL PIN-73610

¶11

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.F.N.U. Mollah, Advocate Mr. R. Amin, Advocate

¶12

For the Respondent(s) : None appears

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 08.01.2025

¶17

Heard Mr. A.F.N.U. Mollah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶18

None appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 when the matter is called.

¶19

The instant application has been filed alleging willful and deliberate violation to the order dated 07.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 7053/2021. The direction which was passed by this Court is at paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 which are reproduced herein under:

¶20

“7. During the course of hearing and a pointed query, Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel on instruction from his client submitted that the entire due can be paid within a period of 6 months before the Bakijai Officer in installment.

¶21

In view of such submission, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 5 to deposit the awarded amount along with interest before the Bakijai Officer within a period of six months from today. If such payment is not made as directed, the same will bear additional interest @ 3% and the Bakijai Officer will be at liberty to exercise its power under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913 to recover the same.”

¶22

From the above quoted portion of the order dated 07.11.2022, it reveals that there was a direction upon the respondent No. 5, who is the respondent No. 3 in the instant contempt proceedings to deposit the awarded amount along with interest before the Bakijai Officer within a

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

period of 6 (six) months from the date of the said order. It was further mentioned that if such payment is not made as directed, the same shall bear an additional interest at the rate of 3% and the Bakijai Officer would be at liberty to exercise its power under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913 to recover the same.

¶25

It is seen that pursuant to the said order being passed, the petitioner duly intimated the respondent No. 2 and respondent No.3 herein. Further to that, it is also seen that on 02.09.2023 the respondent No. 2 was also intimated that there was no payment made by the respondent No. 3 in compliance with the direction and as such had sought the assistance of the respondent No. 2 as directed in the order dated 07.11.2022. It has been further submitted during the course of the hearing that pursuant to the said communication dated 02.09.2023 to the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 3 had only deposited an amount of Rs.8,08,800/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Eight Thousand Eight Hundred) but had not paid the interest.

¶26

However, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner thereupon had represented before the respondent No. 2 insofar as further proceeding with the Bakijai proceedings. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court the allegation of willful and deliberate violation as alleged against the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 does not arise.

¶27

Be that as it may, the petitioner would be at liberty to further take steps before the respondent No. 2, i.e. the Bakijai Officer, Dhubri for further proceeding with the realization of the amount as per the order dated 07.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 7053/2021 and this Court further

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

directs the respondent No. 2 to take appropriate steps in such proceedings.

¶30

Accordingly, the contempt proceeding stands dropped.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Dipali Roy Barman @ Jaya Barman v. Dibakar Nath, IAS and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipali Roy Barman @ Jaya Barman v. Dibakar Nath, IAS 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Green Valley Industry Vs Nazrul Islam and Ors.

Amulya Kumar Goswami Vs Prabason Chakraborty

Ronald Hazarika Vs Diganta Borah and 3 Ors.

Muhila Boruah Vs Dr. Rathindra Bhuyan

Anwarul Haque Laskar Vs Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Rakhe Tallar Vs Hemanta Kumar Das and 2 Ors.

Tajom Taggu and 15 Ors. Vs Along Ketan and 4 Ors.

Miss Champa Deka Vs Sumit Sattawan, IAS

Neeraj Bharali Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ramesh Barman and 5 Ors. Vs Md. Sirajuddin Ahmed

Binod Hazarika Vs the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority and Anr.

Shankar Roy Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Aymona Bibi and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.