M/S Rt Hardware and Suppliers and Anr. Vs Jay Shivani and Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010016192024

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:8565

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/52/2024

¶6

M/S RT HARDWARE AND SUPPLIERS AND ANR

¶7

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR RAMDHAN TONTUBAI, VILL.DUDPATIL, P.O. LABURBAND, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM

¶8

2: Ramdhan Tontubai S.O CHAND TONTUBAI PROPRIETOR OF MS RT HARDWARE AND SUPPLIERS VILL LABURBOND P.S SILCHAR DIST CACHAR 2: RAMDHAN TONTUBAI S/O- CHAND TONTUBAI PROPRIETOR OF M/S RT HARDWARE AND SUPPLIERS VILL.- DUDPATIL PART-VIII P.O. LABURBOND P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSA

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

JAY SHIVANI and ORS THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, JURIPAR, GUWAHATI-22, ASSAM

¶11

2:KEERTHI JALLI IAS THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JURIPAR GUWAHATI-22 ASSAM.

¶12

Page No.# 2/6

¶13

3:MRIDUL KUMAR YADAV DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR MGNREGA COURT ROAD SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM-788001.

¶14

4:AAYUSH GARG IAS DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR MGNREGA COURT ROAD SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM-788001

¶15

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.J. Quadir, Advocate

¶16

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 15.06.2026

¶20

Heard Mr. M. J. Quadir, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶21

The instant application has been filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 23.08.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 4511/2021. Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the said order, being relevant, are reproduced hereinbelow:

¶22

Page No.# 3/6

¶23

“4. The above stand taken by the respondents shows that the Block Development Officer, Borkhola had duly admitted the dues of the petitioner. Be that as it may, Mr. N. K. Debnath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the P&RD duly submitted that the admission of the petitioner's entitlement is made only by the Block Development Officer. He submitted that the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department may be directed to carry out the verification as to the entitlement of the petitioner within a time frame.

¶24

Taking into account the above submission and the categorical admission by the Block Development Officer, Borkhola, this Court disposes of the instant writ petition with a direction to the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department to carry out the verification as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.76,18,804/- and upon making necessary verification, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to, the said amount be paid to the petitioner. The said exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of a certified copy of the instant order is submitted to the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department.”

¶25

From a perusal of the said order, it appears that this Court had specifically directed the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department to verify whether the petitioner was entitled to the amount of Rs. 76,18,804/- and only upon such verification and upon finding that the petitioner was entitled to, to release the said amount to the petitioner. This Court had further directed that the said exercise be completed within a period of four months.

¶26

As the said exercise was not carried out within the

¶27

Page No.# 4/6

¶28

stipulated period of four months, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present contempt application.

¶29

The records reveal that notice was issued on 02.02.2024.

¶30

It is, however, pertinent to take note of the order passed by this Court on 20.05.2026, whereby the instant contempt proceeding was directed to be listed today. This Court had further directed the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department to submit a report as to whether verification had been carried out regarding the petitioners’ entitlement to the amount and, if so, whether the petitioners were entitled to any amount. It was further directed that such report be submitted by way of an affidavit to be filed by the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, on or before 12.06.2026.

¶31

Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that on 12.06.2026 an order was passed by the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, whereby the amount, which the petitioners claimed was denied. It was further submitted that the affidavit of the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department is in the process of being filed during the course of the day.

¶32

Page No.# 5/6

¶33

This Court also takes note of the order dated 12.06.2026, which is kept on record and marked with the letter "Y". From a perusal of the said order, it appears that the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department after carrying out the verification came to an opinion that the petitioners’ claim regarding completion of the 14 schemes could not be substantiated. Further to that, it was also mentioned that after observing all the records, it revealed that the Commissionerate did not admit any liability to pay any amount to the petitioners contrary to the 14 schemes.

¶34

Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that as the Panchayat and Rural Development Department do not admit to the claims of the petitioners rather holds that the petitioners are not entitled to the claims regarding completion of the 14 schemes, there cannot be any willful and deliberate violation to the order dated 23.08.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 4511/2021, inasmuch as this Court had categorically observed that payment was required to be made only after verification and subject to the petitioners were found entitled.

¶35

In that view of the matter, the instant contempt application stands dismissed.

¶36

Before parting with the records, this Court however

¶37

Page No.# 6/6

¶38

observes that the dismissal of the instant contempt application shall not prejudice or preclude the petitioners from challenging the order dated 12.06.2026 as well as also file appropriate proceedings for realization of the said amount of Rs. 76,18,804/- before a competent Court of civil jurisdiction.

¶39

The period from the date of filing of the writ petition being WP(C) No. 4511/2021 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

M/S Rt Hardware and Suppliers and Anr. v. Jay Shivani and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rt Hardware and Suppliers and Anr. v. Jay Shivani and 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

Puspa Deka and Anr. Vs Ms Kag Associates and Anr.

M/S Sunswrang Associates and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Ms Kag Associates Vs Superintendent of Police

The Management of M/S Buildworth Pvt. Limited Vs the State of Assam

Gopal Mandal Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Janardan Hazarika and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.