Mrinal Das v. Jay Shivani and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Feb 2026Cont.Cas(C)/323/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court contempt petition Cont.Cas(C)/323/2024 (Manish Choudhury, J., order dated 10-02-2026) alleging non-compliance of order dated 28.02.2024 in W.P.(C) 1042/2024; MGNREGA 2021-2022 contract-work payment dispute (Contract-Work nos. 19 and 29); requirement of admission of liability by Head of Department per Tamsher Ali (FB), 2008 [4] GLT 1; verification team and Enquiry Report; admissible amount Rs. 9,54,850/-; direction to disburse final bill of Rs. 1,61,521/- within two months; contempt jurisdiction limited to the direction; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Respondent no. 1 directed to disburse Rs. 1,61,521/- (final bill) to the petitioner within two months if not already released; liberty to pursue further claims before the appropriate forum; contempt petition disposed of ¶¶48

Mrinal Das Vs Jay Shivani and 2 Ors. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether there was non-compliance of the direction in the Order dated 28.02.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 1042/2024 (re-verification of MGNREGA material bills and payment of admitted liability), warranting action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

Contempt jurisdiction is limited to the direction made in the Order dated 28.02.2024; since respondent no. 1 carried out the directed verification exercise, albeit with some delay, it is not necessary to proceed further in the contempt petition

¶¶44

Ratio / Principle

On the verification conducted through a team of technical experts constituted by respondent no. 1, the liability to the extent of Rs. 9,54,850/- was found entitled to the petitioner on the basis of the Enquiry Report

¶¶43

Key takeaways

If the amount of Rs. 1,61,521/- (final bill) has not been released to the petitioner, respondent no. 1 shall ensure its disbursement within a period of two monthsratio¶¶45
The petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy as permissible under law before the appropriate forum in respect of any further claim regarding the Schemes concernedratio¶¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, S.12 r/w Article 215, Constitution of India - alleged non-compliance of Order dated 28.02.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 1042/2024, whereby the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam (Head of Department) was directed, in view of the Full Bench decision in Tamsher Ali v. State of Assam, 2008 [4] GLT 1, to re-verify the petitioner's pending MGNREGA material bills and pay the admitted liability within two months - respondent no. 1 constituted a verification team (Office Order dated 05.08.2025); Enquiry Report found actual earthwork of 8605.44 cum (86.99% of compacted volume) with overestimation in official documents; admissible amount assessed at Rs. 9,54,850/- - payment statement showed five bills totalling Rs. 9,54,687/- as paid; petitioner disputed non-receipt of 5th bill of Rs. 1,61,521/- - respondents' stand that the 'Raised Platform' scheme was not permissible under para 7.2 of the Annual Master Circular 2021-2022 noted - contempt jurisdiction confined to the direction in the order under execution; the directed exercise having been carried out, albeit with delay, no further proceedings warranted - respondent no. 1 directed to disburse Rs. 1,61,521/- within two months if not released - petitioner at liberty to pursue further claims before the appropriate forum - contempt petition disposed of.

Page No.# 1 / 7

GAHC010122172024

2026:GAU-AS:2005

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶5

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/323/2024

¶6

MRINAL DAS

¶7

S/O- SRI DHONIRAM DAS, VILL.- NO. 1 MOHAIJAN, P.O. MOHAIJAN P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR, PIN- 787032.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

JAY SHIVANI AND 2 ORS.

¶10

COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, PANJABARI, JURIPAR, GUWAHATI- 781037.

¶11

2:GAYATRI HYALINGE THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR MGNREGA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787001.

¶12

3:SEUTY DOLEY THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LAKHIMPUR DEVELOPMENT BLOCK NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST.- LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787001

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K NEOG, MR. S K SINGHA

¶14

Page No.# 2 / 7

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : MR S DUTTA (R-1,2 & 3), MR S DUTTA (R1),MS. N BORAH (R1),MR. K KONWAR (R1)

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 10-02-2026

¶20

Heard Mr. S.K. Singha, learned counsel for the Petitioner; Ms. N. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1; and Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

¶21

This contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India is preferred alleging that there is non-compliance of the direction given by this Court in an Order dated 28.02.2024, passed in a writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 1042/2024, which was preferred by the petitioner.

¶22

In the writ petition, the petitioner had averred that the petitioner had executed two contract-works awarded to the petitioner in respect of two Schemes, namely, [i] Raised Platform at Lohan Gaon near Namghar under MGNREGA 2021-2022 [8Contract-Work no. 19, for short]; and [ii] Earth Filling and Land Development at proposed site of PMAY-G Colony at 0.2 Kalioni under MGNREGA 2021-2022 [8Contract-Work no. 29, for short]. The State respondents did not release his outstanding liabilities amounting to Rs. 28,26,895/- till the date of filing of the writ petition, despite execution of the two contract-works fully by the petitioner.

¶23

The writ petition came up for consideration on 28.02.2024. The Court took into consideration the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali and others vs. State of Assam and others, 2008 [4] GLT 1 , to observe that any contract amount payable would have to be approved/ admitted by the concerned Head of the Department. As the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam was the Head of the Department in respect of the two Schemes/contract-works against which the petitioner had claimed the amount, the Court directed

¶24

Page No.# 3 / 7

¶25

the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam to re-verify the list of pending material bills under the MGNREGA, which was annexed to a Letter dated 09.10.2023 by the concerned Block Development Officer, found annexed to the writ petition, in relation to the petitioner's claim. The Court further directed that if upon verification, it was found that the petitioner was entitled to some outstanding amount, then the admitted liability should be paid by the respondents. The Court directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶26

The petitioner stated that the copy of the Order dated 28.02.2024 was duly submitted to the respondents impleaded herein on 03.05.2024. As the exercise directed by the Order dated 28.02.2024 was not completed within the time period mentioned therein, the petitioner had approached this Court by the present contempt petition.

¶27

The respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 3 have brought their stands by way of affidavits-in-opposition. The respondent no. 1 in the affidavit-inopposition, filed on 16.05.2025, has inter-alia stated that the Scheme, 8Earth Filling and Land Development at proposed site of PMAY-G Colony at 0.2 Kalioni under MGNREGA for FY 2021-20229 [Contract-Work no. 2] had been marked as ongoing in MIS without entering material bills. From the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 3, it is discernible that by an Office Order dated 05.08.2025, the respondent no. 1 constituted a team of three officials of State Headquarter to physically verify and ascertain the volume of earth filling done in respect to the Scheme, 8Earth Filling and Land Development at proposed site of PMAY-G Colony at 0.2 Kalioni under MGNREGA for FY 2021-20229 [Contract-Work no. 2]. The team so constituted went for physical verification at the site on 21.08.2025 and submitted an Enquiry Report, which is found annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 3. As per the Enquiry Report, the team after field verification found that the volume of actual earthwork done was 8605.44 cum [cubic meter] which was 86.99% of the compacted volume after considering shrinkage as per the working

¶28

Page No.# 4 / 7

¶29

estimate. It was further observed that a proper site survey and crosssection method of earthwork calculation were not undertaken prior to the preparation of the estimate and the same had led to an overestimation of the project volume in the official documents. Subsequent to submission of the Enquiry Report, the Chief Executive Officer, Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad wrote to the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam vide Office Letter dated 02.09.2025 stating inter-alia that after carrying out technical verification and submission of report, the admissible amount had been assessed at Rs. 9,54,850/-. A statement of payment details made to the petitioner issued under the hand of the respondent no. 3 [Block Development Officer, Lakhimpur Development Block] has been annexed to the said affidavit-in-opposition giving break-up of five bills with their respective bill amount. As per the said statement, out of the five bills, four bills had already been cleared and in so far as the payment with regard to the 5^th bill is concerned, the payment was in queue due to technical problem and the same would be solved within a week.

¶30

The petitioner has, however, disputed the stance taken by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-reply. According to him, the total bill amount recorded in the MIS on 10.04.2022 in respect to the Scheme under reference was Rs. 25,74,490/-, and the said amount had to be treated as an admitted liability. It has been further averred that out of Rs. 25,74,490/-, an amount of Rs. 7,93,169/- had only been paid by the respondent no. 3.

¶31

As regards the Scheme named 8Raised Platform at Lohan Gaon near Namghar under MGNREGA 2021-20229 [Contract Work no. 1], the respondents have taken a clear stand that the said Scheme is not a permissible work under the MGNREGA as per para 7.2 of the Annual Master Circular 2021-2022 and as such, no material payment can be made against such non-permissible Scheme. In view of such categorical stand, it is not necessary to delve further into the issue.

¶32

Page No.# 5 / 7

¶33

It needs to iterate that the full Bench of this Court in Tamsher Ali [supra] has observed that a writ petition involving contractual liability can be considered only in the event there is admission of liability certified by the respective Chief Engineer in the Works Department and in respect of other departments by the head of the department.

¶34

In the case in hand, as there was no admission of liability by the Head of the Department, i.e., the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam, in respect of the two contract-works against which the petitioner had claimed the amount against execution, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam to make a verification and upon verification, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to any outstanding amount then the liability to the extent admitted should be paid.

¶35

The stand as regards liability taken by the respondent no. 1 is found to the extent of Rs. 9,54,850/-. Ms. Das has placed on record the status of payment details against the Scheme, 8Earth filling land development at Propose site of PMAY-G Colony of No. 2 Kolioni9 [Contract-Work no. 2] under MGNREGA 2021-2022 as under :-

¶36

Financial year	Work Code	Name of the Work	Bill No.	Vendor Name Bill Amount	FTO No.
2021-22	0410003005/ LD/ 9010306153	PAYMENT DETAILS OF EARTH FILLING & DEVELOPMENT AT PROPOSED SITE OF PMAY-G COLONY AT NO. 2 KOLIONI	494	MRINAL DAS 199391	041000300SSPAY REQ2811202515
2021-22	0410003005/ LD/ 9010306153	PAYMENT DETAILS OF EARTH FILLING & DEVELOPMENT AT PROPOSED SITE OF PMAY-G COLONY AT NO. 2 KOLIONI	495	MRINAL DAS 197925	041000300SSPAY REQ2811202516
2021-22	0410003005/ LD/ 9010306153	PAYMENT DETAILS OF EARTH FILLING & DEVELOPMENT AT PROPOSED SITE OF PMAY-G COLONY AT NO. 2 KOLIONI	496	MRINAL DAS 197925	041000300SSPAY REQ2811202517
2021-22	0410003005/ LD/ 9010306153	PAYMENT DETAILS OF EARTH FILLING & DEVELOPMENT AT PROPOSED SITE OF PMAY-G COLONY AT NO. 2 KOLIONI	497	MRINAL DAS 197925	041000300SSPAY REQ2811202518
2021-22	0410003005/ LD/ 9010306153	PAYMENT DETAILS OF EARTH FILLING & DEVELOPMENT AT PROPOSEDSITEOF PMAY-G	498	MRINAL DAS 161521	041000300SSPAY REQ210120266

¶37

Page No.# 6 / 7

¶38

COLONY AT NO. 2 KOLIONI

¶39

Total

¶40

954687

¶41

Relying upon the above statement, Ms. Das has submitted that the entire amount of Rs. 9,54,687/- has already been paid to the petitioner.

¶42

Mr. Singha has, on the other hand, disputed to the extent that the 5^th bill amount shown as Rs. 1,61,521/- has not been received by the petitioner till date.

¶43

Having regard to the direction made in the Order dated 28.02.2024, this Court after consideration has found that the respondent no. 1 had carried out a verification process to ascertain the extent of work completed against the Scheme, 8Earth filling land development at Propose site of PMAY-G Colony of No. 2 Kolioni9 [Contract-Work no. 2] under MGNREGA 2021-2022 by constituting a team of technical experts and it was on the basis of the Enquiry Report submitted by the team, the liability to the extent of Rs. 9,54,850/- has been found entitled by the petitioner.

¶44

Taking into consideration the scope and ambit of contempt jurisdiction, which is only limited to the direction made in the Order dated 28.02.2024, this Court is of the considered view that it is not necessary to proceed further in this contempt petition as the respondent no. 1 had carried out the necessary exercise, as directed, albeit with some delay.

¶45

Taking into consideration the objection made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to non-receipt of the amount of Rs. 1,61,521/as the final bill, this Court directs that if the amount of Rs. 1,61,521/- has not been released to the petitioner till date, then the respondent no. 1 shall ensure that the said amount is disbursed to the petitioner, within a period of 2 [two] months from today.

¶46

It is further clarified that if the petitioner has any further claim with regard to the Schemes concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy as permissible under the law before the appropriate forum.

¶47

Page No.# 7 / 7

¶48

This order disposes of the contempt petition.

¶49

The document placed by Ms. Das is kept with the case record by marking it as Document – 8X9.

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

Comparing Assistant

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 28.02.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 1042/2024 directing the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam to re-verify the list of pending MGNREGA material bills relating to the petitioner and, if found entitled, to pay the admitted liability, completing the exercise within two months of receipt of certified copy¶¶21
The Gauhati High Court · 28.02.2024
Prior proceeding
Writ petition W.P.(C) No. 1042/2024: petitioner claimed Rs. 28,26,895/- as outstanding liabilities for two executed MGNREGA 2021-2022 contract-works (Contract-Work no. 19 - Raised Platform at Lohan Gaon near Namghar; Contract-Work no. 29 - Earth Filling and Land Development at proposed PMAY-G Colony site)¶¶22
Prior proceeding
By Order dated 28.02.2024, considering the Full Bench decision in Tamsher Ali (2008 [4] GLT 1), the Court directed the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam to re-verify the list of pending material bills under MGNREGA and, if the petitioner was found entitled, to pay the admitted liability, within two months¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Certified copy of the Order dated 28.02.2024 was submitted to the respondents on 03.05.2024; the petitioner filed the present contempt petition as the directed exercise was not completed within time¶¶26
Prior proceeding
Respondent no. 1 filed affidavit-in-opposition on 16.05.2025¶¶27
Prior proceeding
By Office Order dated 05.08.2025, respondent no. 1 constituted a team of three State Headquarter officials to physically verify the earth filling under Contract-Work no. 2; the team verified the site on 21.08.2025 and submitted an Enquiry Report finding actual earthwork of 8605.44 cum (86.99% of compacted volume) and overestimation in official documents¶¶27
Prior proceeding
By Office Letter dated 02.09.2025, the Chief Executive Officer, Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad informed the Commissioner that after technical verification the admissible amount was assessed at Rs. 9,54,850/-¶¶29
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed affidavit-in-reply claiming Rs. 25,74,490/- as the total bill recorded in MIS on 10.04.2022, of which only Rs. 7,93,169/- had been paid by respondent no. 3¶¶30

Mrinal Das v. Jay Shivani and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrinal Das v. Jay Shivani 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hitesh Ch Roy Vs Anurag Goel, IAS

Charan Borgayary Vs Anurag Goel, IAS and Anr.

Sayeda Husneara Jahan Vs Suranjana Senapati, Acs

Purnima Devi and Anr. Vs Sari Lalruotkim Lungtau, Acs

Khairuzzaman Shahniar Vs Smti. Mamata Hojai, Aes

Dr. Bhaben Choudhury Vs a. L. Choudhury and Anr.

Jagadish Bhuyan Vs Dr. Ravi Kota

Dipankar Kalita Vs M. S. Manivannan

Shree Shyam Enterprise Vs the State of Assam

Hitesh Ch Roy Vs Anurag Goel, IAS

Charan Borgayary Vs Anurag Goel, IAS and Anr.

M/S Jinku Enterprise Vs the State of Assam and 11 Ors.

Santanu Barkatoky and 5 Ors. Vs Assam Pharmacy Council and 5 Ors.

Panchgram Fishery Cooperative Society Limited and Anr. Vs the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited and 6 Ors.