Lalan Verma and 3 Ors. Vs Munindra Nath Ngatey and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2026)

Lalan Verma and 3 Ors. Vs Munindra Nath Ngatey and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief to the petitioners; the contempt petition stands closed and disposed of, the notices issued stand recalled, and liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek clarification by filing an application or a fresh writ petition.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed wilful disobedience or non-compliance of the directions issued by the Court vide order dated 09.01.2023 in WP(C) No. 294 of 2020. +1 more

Court's answer

No wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 09.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 294/2020 is made out.

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 09.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 294/2020 contained no specific direction to reinstate the writ petitioners, and reading such a reinstatement direction into the order is not called for in contempt jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

No application was filed by the petitioners seeking clarification or further directions from the Court that, in view of the interference with the orders of removal, the writ petitioners were to be reinstated in service.ratio¶¶45
The petitioners remain at liberty, without any restraint, to seek any clarification from the Court by filing an application or a fresh writ petition as may be advised.obiter¶¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Court — alleged wilful disobedience of directions dated 09.01.2023 in WP(C) No. 294/2020 — by the said order the coordinate bench had interfered with and set aside the removal orders dated 21.10.2019 (Annexure-Q Colly) and granted the Health Department liberty to issue fresh show cause notices specifying deficiencies in the appointment orders — held, the said order contained no specific direction for reinstatement of the writ petitioners; the contention that setting aside the removal orders necessarily required reinstatement rejected, as such an interpretation is not called for in contempt jurisdiction — no application for clarification or further directions seeking reinstatement was ever filed — a fresh show cause notice has since been issued, reply filed, and the matter is pending before the appropriate authority — no wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 09.01.2023 made out — contempt petition closed and disposed of; notices issued stand recalled — petitioners at liberty to seek clarification by filing an application or fresh writ petition (Gauhati High Court, Soumitra Saikia, J.).

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010007032024

undefined

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

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/27/2024

LALAN VERMA AND 3 ORS S/O- DHARAMDEO VERMA, R/O- BHUBANKAHAL, P.O- SAIKHOWA GHAT, P.S- DHOLA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786154

2: KESHAB GOGOI S/O- LATE JAMUNA GOGOI R/O INTHEM NAGA PATHER P.O- INTHEM PENGAREE P.S- PENGAREE

DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-786174 3: MULAN BORUAH S/O- PRADIP BORUAH

R/O- DISWJAN P.O- BORGAON P.S- BARAKURI

DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-786170

4: GIRIBALA CHETIA

Page No.# 2/6

D/O- LATE DIMBESWAR CHETIA

R/O- PANGNA VILLAGE

P.O- KETETONG P.S- MARGHERITA DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-78618

VERSUS

MUNINDRA NATH NGATEY AND ANR DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, ASSAM, HENGRABARI, GUWAHATI-36, ASSAM

1.1:DR. UMESH PHANGCHO DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036 DIST.-KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. Resp.No. 1.(a)

2:ALTAF AHMED THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-78612

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORDOLOI, MR. K J SAIKIA,MR. P J SAIKIA, SR. ADV

Advocate for the Respondent : A. KHANAM (r-2), C S KAMTHONG (r-2),MR. S A AHMED (r2),MR. F A AHMED (r-2)

Page No.# 3/6

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

ORDER

13.03.2026

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This contempt petition is filed, alleging wilful disobedience and noncompliance of the directions issued by the Court vide order dated 09.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 294 of 2020.

By the said order, the following directions were issued:-

“Under such circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the said show cause notices issued were not in accordance with the order dated 31.07.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 4580/2019 wherein the petitioners were parties.

Consequently, therefore, this Court interferes with the order of removal dated 21.10.2019, Annexure-Q (Colly) to the writ petition. However, liberty is given to the respondent, i.e. the Health Department to issue show cause notices by specifying the deficiencies found in the appointment orders of the petitioners.

In view of the above, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of thereby interfering and setting aside the impugned removal order dated 21.10.2019, Annexure-Q (Colly) and thereby observing that the respondent, i.e. the Health Department shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in terms with the specific stands as observed in the order dated 31.07.2019 to the effect that they would issue show cause notices thereby specifying the deficiency found against the purported appointment orders in favour of the petitioners.”

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a specific

Page No.# 4/6

direction, whereby the removal orders were set aside. It is the submission that when the removal order is set aside, the petitioners were required to be reinstated in service.

Per contra Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel representing the Respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that there is a specific direction by the Court interfering with the orders removing the petitioners, but there is no consequential directions for reinstatement of the petitioner. Rather, liberty was granted to issue fresh show cause notice which has already been done and the reply has been filed and the matter is pending for disposal before the appropriate authority.

Under such circumstances, there is no violation of the directions contained in the order dated 09.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 294/2020 and consequently the contempt petition is required to be closed.

Upon careful considerations of the submissions made and upon perusal of the directions contained in the order dated 09.01.2023, it is seen that the writ petition being WP(C) No. 294/2020 was filed by the petitioners challenging the respective removal orders dated 21.10.2019. Prior to their removal, the show cause notices were issued to which writ petitioners filed their reply, and upon consideration of the reply the removal orders were issued.

Upon hearing all the parties, the coordinate bench came to the following conclusions:-

Under such circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the said show cause notices issued were not in accordance with the order dated 31.07.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 4580/2019 wherein the petitioners were parties.

Consequently, therefore, this Court interferes with the order of removal dated 21.10.2019, Annexure-Q (Colly) to the writ petition.

Page No.# 5/6

However, liberty is given to the respondent, i.e. the Health Department to issue show cause notices by specifying the deficiencies found in the appointment orders of the petitioners.

In view of the above, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of thereby interfering and setting aside the impugned removal order dated 21.10.2019, Annexure-Q (Colly) and thereby observing that the respondent, i.e. the Health Department shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in terms with the specific stands as observed in the order dated 31.07.2019 to the effect that they would issue show cause notices thereby specifying the deficiency found against the purported appointment orders in favour of the petitioners

With the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.”

A careful perusal of the directions contained in the order dated 09.01.2023, passed in WP(C) No. 294/2020 reveals that there was no specific direction to reinstate the writ petitioners. It could well have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the natural corollary of interference of the orders of removal would be reinstatement in service, but no such submissions were made. Such findings were not arrived at by Competent Court. In the order, the non-compliance for which the contempt petition has been filed, no such conclusions are seen. Further, no application was filed seeking clarification or further directions from the Court that in view of interference of the order of removal, the writ petitioners are to be reinstated in service.

Under such circumstances, this court is of view that there is no specific direction for reinstatement of the writ petitioner and such interpretation is not called for in contempt jurisdiction. Consequently, no wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 09.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 294/2020 is seen. 10. Under such circumstances, this contempt petition stands closed and

Page No.# 6/6

disposed of.

Notices issued, stand recalled.

In the event, if the petitioners require any such clarification from the Court, the said option is available to the petitioners without there being any restraint, by filing any application or fresh writ petition as may be advised.

Comparing Assistant