Dulu Mani Rajkhowa Vs Sri Hemanta Pegu Acs and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2026)

Dulu Mani Rajkhowa Vs Sri Hemanta Pegu Acs and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition closed (with the above observation); no further proceeding; petitioner left free to pursue appropriate remedies under law against APTDCL's post-judgment decisions.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent APTDCL authorities had complied with the directions made in the common Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7076/2025 and W.P.(C) No. 6542/2025. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the post-judgment developments — APTDCL's cancellation of the Work Order (Order dated 24.12.2025), constitution of an eight-member Technical Evaluation Committee (Order dated 02.01.2026), and that Committee's evaluation of 06.02.2026 finding the bids of all four participant bidders non-responsive and recommending fresh tenders — the Court held there was no necessity to proceed further with the contempt petition.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the decisions taken by the APTDCL authorities subsequent to the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2025, he remains at liberty to seek appropriate remedy permissible under the law.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Manish Choudhury, J.), Cont.Cas(C)/144/2026, order dated 18.03.2026 — Contempt petition by Dulu Mani Rajkhowa alleging non-compliance of the directions in the common Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7076/2025 and W.P.(C) No. 6542/2025 against Sri Hemanta Pegu, ACS (Managing Director, APTDCL) and Sri Dilip Kumar Deka (Chief Engineer, APTDCL). APTDCL placed on record: Order No. PTDC/Engg/2024-25/376 dated 24.12.2025 taking note of the said directions and cancelling the Work Order issued earlier to the successful bidder; Order dated 02.01.2026 constituting an eight-member Technical Evaluation Committee; and Minutes of the Committee's Meeting held on 06.02.2026 recording evaluation of the bids of all four participant bidders (including the contempt petitioner), finding them non-responsive and recommending invitation of fresh tenders. Held: in view of these developments there was no necessity to proceed further with the contempt petition; the petition was closed and the petitioner left at liberty to seek appropriate remedy under law if aggrieved by APTDCL's subsequent decisions.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010048352026

undefined

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

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/144/2026

DULU MANI RAJKHOWA

S/O LATE CHANDRA RAJKHOWA,

RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 31, HENGRABARI, NEAR FOREST GATE, P.O. HENGRABARI, P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-78102

VERSUS

SRI HEMANTA PEGU ACS AND ANR

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. GANESHGURI, GUWAHATI-781005.

2:SRI DILIP KUMAR DEKA THE CHIEF ENGINEER

ASSAM PLAIN TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. GANESHGURI GUWAHATI-781005

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L N DIHINGIA, MR. PAVLOV HANDIQUE,MR. A K SAHU

Advocate for the Respondent : MR A SHARMA,

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

ORDER

Date : 18.03.2026

Head Mr. P.K. Handique, learned counsel for the petitioner.

This contempt petition is preferred alleging non-compliance of the directions made in a

Page No.# 2/3

common Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2025 passed in two writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 7076/2025 and W.P.[C] no. 6542/2025, preferred by the petitioner. It is averred that the copy of the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2025 was duly brought to the knowledge of the respondents.

As by the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2025, certain directions were made, this Court, on 13.03.2026, requested Mr. A. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Plain Tribes Development Corporation Ltd. [APTDCL] to obtain instructions as to whether pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2025, the respondent APTDCL authorities had complied with the directions or not.

Today, Mr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, APTDCL has placed an Order bearing no. PTDC/Engg/2024-25/376 dated 24.12.2025, an Order dated 02.01.2026, and the Minutes of proceedings of a Meeting held on 06.02.2026.

By Order dated 24.12.2025, the APTDCL authorities took note of the directions made in the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2025 and cancelled the Work Order issued earlier to the successful bidder. By the subsequent Order dated 02.01.2026, the APTDCL had constituted a Technical Evaluation Committee consisting of eight members to evaluate the bids of all the four participant bidders for the contract-work under reference. The Technical Evaluation Committee so constituted by the Order dated 02.01.2026, evaluated the bids of all the four participant bidders including the contempt petitioner herein, in a Meeting held on 06.02.2026. Upon evaluation of the bids, the Technical Evaluation Committee found the bids of all the four participant bidders non-responsive and a decision was taken to recommend for invitation of fresh tenders from intending tenderers. The said decisions of the Technical Evaluation Committee are reflected in the Minutes of its Meeting held on 06.02.2026.

In view of afore-stated developments, this Court is of the view that there is no necessity to proceed further with the contempt petition. If the petitioner finds himself aggrieved by any of the afore-stated decisions taken by the APTDCL authorities subsequent to the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2025, the petitioner is at liberty, to seek appropriate remedy, as permissible under the law. With the above observation, the contempt petition is

Page No.# 3/3

closed.

Mr. Sharma has submitted that he will furnish the copies of the afore-stated Orders/Minutes to Mr. Handique.

The afore-stated documents placed by Mr. Sharma are kept with the case record marking it as the Document – ‘X’ collectively.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant