Gojendra Mishra @ Gajendra Mishra and Anr. Vs Adil Khan, IAS and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010023692025

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/106/2025

¶6

GOJENDRA MISHRA @ GAJENDRA MISHRA AND ANR S/O LATE RAJENDRA MISHRA, R/O VILL- BAGISADUBI NO.1, P.O.KHERONI, P.S.-KHERONI, PIN-782448, DIST-WEST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM

¶7

2: SMT GEETA DEVI W/O SRI GAAJENDRA MISHRA R/O VILL- BAGISADUBI NO.1 P.O.-KHERONI P.S.-KHERONI PIN-782448 DIST-WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSA

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

ADIL KHAN, IAS AND 4 ORS. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, DISPUR, PIN- 781006, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶10

2:SANDEEP KUMAR IFS PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND WILDLIFE AND CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN BASISTHA GUWAHATI PIN- 781029 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶11

3:V K BANSAL

¶12

THE SPECIAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL

¶13

Page No.# 2/8

¶14

DIPHU PO AND PS- DIPHU PIN- 782460 DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 4:RAJIB ENGTII THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER HAMREN DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF FOREST WEST KARBI ANGLONG HAMREN P.O. AND P.S.- HAMREN PIN- 782486 DIST- WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 5:JAYANT NARLIKAR IAS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR PIN-781006 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BORAH, S BARBHUYAN,MS R MEDHI,MR. R DOWARAH

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : MR A CHALIHA (R-5), MS V.SHOHE (R-4),MS. S KEMPRAI(R4),MR J CHUTIYA(R-4),MR P NAYAK(R-5),MR. B GOGOI(R-5),R M BAROOAH(R-5)

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 15.05.2026

¶21

Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also

¶22

heard Ms. S. Kemprai, learned counsel appearing for the contemnor No. 4.

¶23

2. By this contempt petition, the petitioner alleges wilful non-compliance with the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 6444/2019

¶24

Page No.# 3/8

¶25

and seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for deliberate disobedience of the said order.

¶26

3. The operative portion of the order dated 12.08.2024 reads as follows:

¶27

“ 15. In the above factual situation obtaining in the case and in light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to get the ex gratia amount in terms of the Notification dated 06.03.2017. It is, therefore, directed that the respondents shall take necessary action to ensure disbursal of the balance ex gratia amount due to the petitioner on account of the death of her son, upon her due identification, in terms of the Notification dated 06.03.2017, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the amount is not paid within the said period, the balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/(Rupees three lakh only) due shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of death of the deceased, i.e. 11.03.2016, till the date of disbursal.”

¶28

4. A plain reading of the aforesaid direction makes it evident that the respondents were required to ensure disbursal of the balance ex gratia amount payable to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The order further contemplated that, in the event of non-payment within the stipulated period, the outstanding amount would carry interest at the rate specified therein.

¶29

5. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel, submits that although the principal amount of ex gratia compensation has since been released during the pendency of the present proceedings, the respondents have failed to pay the interest component expressly directed by this Court. It is contended that the respondents, having failed to comply with the timeline stipulated in the order dated 12.08.2024, were under a binding obligation not merely to release the principal amount but also to pay interest in terms of the said order. According to the petitioner, failure to comply with

¶30

Page No.# 4/8

¶31

the order in its entirety constitutes deliberate disobedience warranting invocation of contempt jurisdiction.

¶32

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the certified copy of the order had, in substance, been brought to the notice of the authorities much earlier, inasmuch as a communication dated 27.08.2024 was addressed to the District Commissioner, West Karbi Anglong, Hamren, seeking release of the ex-gratia amount. It is therefore argued that the stipulated period of 3 (three) months ought to be computed from that date, and not from the later date asserted by the respondent.

¶33

7. Per contra, Ms. S. Kemprai, learned counsel appearing for contemnor No. 4, submits that no case of contempt is made out. It is her contention that the petitioner submitted the certified copy of the order before the competent authority, namely the Divisional Forest Officer, Hamren Division, only on 20.03.2025. Upon receipt thereof, immediate administrative steps were initiated, and the matter was processed without delay through the appropriate channel. It is submitted that the ex gratia amount was accordingly released within the stipulated period reckoned from the date on which the competent authority was formally placed in possession of the Court’s order.

¶34

8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that contempt jurisdiction is not intended to adjudicate disputed questions relating to interpretation, implementation, or consequential monetary claims where substantial compliance with the principal direction has already been effected. In the absence of any material establishing deliberate or contumacious disobedience, initiation of contempt proceedings, it is urged, would be wholly unwarranted.

¶35

Page No.# 5/8

¶36

9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed on record.

¶37

10. At the outset, it requires to be observed that the jurisdiction exercised by a Court in contempt proceedings is a limited and special jurisdiction. The object of such jurisdiction is to secure compliance with orders of the Court and to uphold the authority of the judicial process. At the same time, the power to punish for contempt is not intended to serve as a substitute for execution proceedings or as a forum for adjudication of disputed questions concerning the precise manner of implementation of an order, unless the element of wilful and deliberate disobedience is clearly established.

¶38

11. For a case of civil contempt to be made out, mere non-compliance or imperfect compliance with a judicial direction does not, by itself, suffice. What must be demonstrated is a conscious, deliberate, and intentional disregard of the command of the Court. If the materials on record disclose bona fide compliance, substantial implementation, or circumstances inconsistent with deliberate defiance, invocation of contempt jurisdiction would be inappropriate.

¶39

12. In the present case, the contemnor has placed on record an affidavit-inopposition stating that the petitioner furnished a certified copy of the order dated 12.08.2024 before the Divisional Forest Officer, Hamren Division, on 20.03.2025, along with an application seeking release of the balance ex gratia amount. It has further been stated that upon receipt thereof, the matter was processed immediately and forwarded to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden, Assam, by communication dated 24.03.2025, after verification of the relevant records and the identity of the petitioner. Thereafter, sanction was accorded by the competent authority on 03.04.2025, and consequential steps were taken for transfer of the amount to

¶40

Page No.# 6/8

¶41

the petitioner’s bank account.

¶42

13. The petitioner, in the reply affidavit, seeks to contend that the certified copy had already reached the District Commissioner, West Karbi Anglong, Hamren, on 03.09.2024, and that the respondents cannot therefore rely upon the later date of 20.03.2025 to contend compliance.

¶43

14. However, the critical issue in contempt jurisdiction is not merely whether some communication may have reached an authority at an earlier point of time, but whether deliberate and wilful disobedience of the Court’s order by the alleged contemnor stands clearly established. The materials placed before this Court do not satisfy that threshold.

¶44

15. It is not in dispute that the District Commissioner, West Karbi Anglong, was neither arrayed as a respondent in the original writ proceedings nor impleaded as a contemnor in the present proceedings. The respondent against whom contempt is alleged has categorically asserted that the certified copy of the order was received by the competent office on 20.03.2025, whereafter steps were taken without undue delay for processing and release of the amount. The chronology disclosed in the affidavit does not, on its face, indicate indifference, obstruction, or conscious defiance of the Court’s mandate.

¶45

16. Indeed, the record suggests administrative movement rather than inaction. The proposal was forwarded within a few days of receipt of the petitioner’s application, sanction followed shortly thereafter, and the ex gratia amount was ultimately released. Such conduct does not readily admit of an inference of contumacious disobedience.

¶46

17. The principal grievance of the petitioner now survives in relation to the

¶47

Page No.# 7/8

¶48

non-payment of the interest component directed in the order dated 12.08.2024. However, the mere existence of a dispute regarding consequential monetary liability does not automatically translate into civil contempt. Whether the petitioner is entitled, in the factual circumstances, to insist upon computation of the stipulated period from an earlier date and thereby claim the interest component is a matter that may involve examination of the scope and implementation of the original direction. Contempt jurisdiction is not ordinarily the appropriate forum for adjudicating such contested questions unless the obligation is clear, the breach is unequivocal, and the disobedience demonstrably wilful.

¶49

18. Tested on that standard, this Court is unable to conclude that the respondent’s conduct discloses deliberate defiance of the order passed by this Court.

¶50

19. The contempt jurisdiction of this Court, being punitive in character, must be exercised with circumspection and only in cases where the element of wilful disobedience is established to a clear and convincing standard. The materials placed before this Court do not disclose such deliberate disregard of the Court’s authority.

¶51

20. While the petitioner may maintain a grievance in relation to the nonpayment of the interest component contemplated under the order dated 12.08.2024, the facts of the present case do not persuade this Court to hold that the respondent has acted in conscious or contumacious defiance of the Court’s mandate so as to warrant action under the contempt jurisdiction.

¶52

21. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that no case of civil contempt is made out against the respondent.

¶53

Page No.# 8/8

¶54

22. Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands closed.

¶55

23. The show cause notice issued earlier shall stand recalled and discharged.

¶56

24. It is, however, made clear that dismissal/closure of the present contempt proceedings shall not, by itself, preclude the petitioner from availing such remedies as may otherwise be available in law in respect of any subsisting claim arising out of the original order dated 12.08.2024, if so advised.

¶57

JUDGE

¶58

Comparing Assistant

Gojendra Mishra @ Gajendra Mishra and Anr. v. Adil Khan, IAS and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gojendra Mishra @ Gajendra Mishra and Anr. v. Adil Khan, IAS and 4 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

Shankar Mandir Pratibekhi Samaj and 2 Ors. Vs Bhabesh Rajbongshi and Anr.

Bikash Kumar More Vs Ashok K.K. Meena and 3 Ors.

Salam Uddin Khan Vs 2) Jagadish Baishya

Rabin Borah Vs Narayan Konwar, IAS and Anr.

Nirangamayee Devi Vs Sanjeeb Kumar Das

Jonah Terrang Vs Tensing Rongpi

Smti Munni Harijan Vs Gyanendra Dev Tripathi and 2 Ors.

Sri Babul Das Vs Pawan Kumar Borthakur and Anr.

Minhaz Khan and Ors. Vs Ajgar Ali and Ors.

Biswajit Dey and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Tapan Jyoti Dutta Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

M/S Saga Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bishnu Goyary Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Sri Gopal Boro Vs Premjit Sarma and Ors.