Disposed¶44

Lalhliapa and 2 Ors. v. Sh Khili Ram Meena and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Mar 2026Cont.Cas(C)/36/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Closure/disposal of contempt petition (Cont.Cas(C)/36/2025) at the Gauhati High Court, Justice Pranjal Das, decided 05.03.2026. Subject: alleged non-compliance by Mizoram officials (Khili Ram Meena, Chief Secretary, and others) with Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2024 in WA No. 6/2023; petition closed after respondents' compliance shown via School Education Department notification dated 23.02.2026 (marked 'X'). Contains observations distinguishing contempt jurisdiction from execution/enforcement of orders. No statutes or precedent cases cited.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition No. 36/2025 closed and disposed of; the notification dated 23.02.2026 marked as 'X' and made part of the record. ¶44

Lalhliapa and 2 Ors. Vs Sh Khili Ram Meena and 3 Ors. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt Petition No. 36/2025 closed and disposed of; the notification dated 23.02.2026 marked as 'X' and made part of the record.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the contempt proceedings instituted for alleged non-compliance and disobedience of the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2024 in WA No. 6/2023 should be closed, the respondents having since complied with the directions therein.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Once an alleged willful disobedience of the Court's order is pointed out by the petitioner, the matter of contempt becomes essentially between the Court and the alleged contemnor, if any.

¶34

Key takeaways

The contempt jurisdiction is not really for the purpose of execution of the Court's orders.ratio¶38
Nevertheless, the aspect of full compliance with the Judgment giving rise to the contempt proceeding cannot be overlooked.ratio¶39
In view of the compliance effected (evidenced by the notification dated 23.02.2026), it was just and proper to close the contempt proceedings, and Contempt Petition No. 36/2025 was accordingly closed and disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pranjal Das) — Cont.Cas(C)/36/2025, order dated 05.03.2026. Contempt proceedings initiated by Lalhliapa and 2 others alleging non-compliance and disobedience of the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Division Bench in WA No. 6/2023 were closed and disposed of after counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents (Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and others) had complied with the directions, evidenced by a Government of Mizoram, School Education Department notification dated 23.02.2026, which was marked 'X' and made part of the record. The Court observed that after an alleged willful disobedience is pointed out, the matter of contempt becomes essentially between the Court and the alleged contemnor, the contempt jurisdiction not being for execution of the Court's orders, but that full compliance with the underlying Judgment cannot be overlooked.

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC030008312025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/36/2025

¶5

Lalhliapa and 2 Ors.

¶6

S/o C.Lalkhuma (L), C/o Principal, Govt. Republic Higher Secondary School, Aizawl, Mizoram

¶7

2: C.Lalmuanpuii

¶8

3: Vanhmingliani Tochhawn

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Sh Khili Ram Meena and 3 Ors. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl

¶11

2:Sh David Lalthantluanga

¶12

3:Sh K.Lalthawmmawia

¶13

4:Sh Vanlaldina Fana

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Dinari T Azyu

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : Mrs. Mary Lalruatkimi Khiangte

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

B E F O R E

¶18

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

¶19

ORDER

¶20

05.03.2026

¶21

Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶22

Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned counsel represents all the

¶23

respondents.

¶24

2. The instant contempt proceedings was initiated by the petitioners

¶25

alleging non-compliance and disobedience with regard to Judgment and

¶26

Order dated 13.11.2024 in WA No. 6/2023.

¶27

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meantime

¶28

the respondents have complied with the direction given in the aforesaid

¶29

Judgment and in support of the same he submits a notification of the

¶30

Government of Mizoram, School Education Department dated 23.02.2026.

¶31

4. It is submitted that in view of the compliance with the Judgment and

¶32

Order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA

¶33

No. 6/2023, the contempt petition can be closed.

¶34

5. It is well settled that after an alleged willful disobedience of the

¶35

Court’s order pointed out by the petitioner the matter of contempt becomes

¶36

essentially between the Court and the alleged Contemnor if any, and that

¶37

Page No.# 3/3

¶38

the contempt jurisdiction is not really for the purpose of execution of the

¶39

Court’s orders. Nevertheless, the aspect of full compliance with the

¶40

Judgment giving rise to the contempt proceeding also cannot be

¶41

overlooked.

¶42

6. Therefore, in view of the latest developments, I deem it to just and

¶43

proper to close the contempt proceedings.

¶44

7. Accordingly, Contempt Petition No. 36/2025 is hereby closed and

¶45

disposed of.

¶46

8. The notification dated 23.02.2026 be marked as ‘X’ and be part of the record.

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Comparing Assistant

Lalhliapa and 2 Ors. v. Sh Khili Ram Meena and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalhliapa and 2 Ors. v. Sh Khili Ram Meena and 3 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

Nabin Ch Hatimuria Vs Dr Ravi Kota, IAS and 6 Ors.

Suman Chetia Vs Sri Gokul Khanikar

Dr. Jagadish Hansa Vs Prof Rajive Mohan Pant and Anr.

Lalnunthari Vs Sh Rajesh Kumar Singh and 6 Ors.

Niju Das and 5 Ors. Vs Ajay Kumar Bhala and 3 Ors.

Abdur Rohim Vs Dr. Bijoya Choudhury ,Acs and Anr.

Sitaram Kanoo and 17 Others Vs Nisarg Hivarea, IAS and Anr.

Sanower Uddin Vs Dr. Bijoya Choudhury and Anr.

Sh. Khamliana @Zakhamliana Vs State of Mizoram and Anr.

Sh. C. Lianhluna Vs The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 3 Ors.

Sh. Lalrinsanga Singson Vs The State of Mizoram and Anr.

C.Lalthlamuani Vs Smt C.Ramdingliani and 2 Ors.

Sh. Jamminlal Touthang and Anr. Vs The State of Mizoram