Smti. Bornali Uzir and 2 Ors v. Sudip Bhattacharjee

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010011012024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCont.Cas(C)/44/2024o SMTI.oBORNALIoUZIRoANDo2oORSo W/OoSHRIoMONIMANTAoSAIKIA,oD/OoSMT.oBULUoBORAoUZIR,oR/OoVILL-HOWRAGHAToTINIALI,oMOUZAoLANGPHER,oP.O.oKACHUPUKHURI,oP.S.- HOWRAGHAT,oDISToKARBIoANGLONG,oASSAM,oPIN-782482 2:oSMT.oKAKULIoUZIR oW/OoSHRIoMANJIToKUMARoBORA oD/OoSMT.oBULUoBORAoUZIR oR/OoVILL-HOWRAGHAToTINIALI oMOUZAoLANGPHER oP.O.oKACHUPUKHURI oP.S.-HOWRAGHAT oDISToKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-782482 oP/R/AoH/NO.o1 oHOUSEFEDoVILLAGE oBYEoLANEo22 oJURIPARoPATH oSIXoMILE oGUWAHATI oDIST-oKAMRUPo(METROPOLITAN) oASSAM oPIN-781022 3:oSMT.oJUNALIoUZIR oW/OoSHRIoJITUoDAS oD/OoSMT.oBULUoBORAoUZIR oR/OoVILL-HOWRAGHAToTINIALI oMOUZAoLANGPHER oP.O.oKACHUPUKHURI oP.S.-HOWRAGHAT oDISToKARBIoANGLONG oASSAMoPIN-78248o Page No.# 2/3 VERSUS SUDIP BHATTACHARJEE VALUATION OFFICER (INCOME TAX), OFFICE OF THE VALUATION CELL, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 7TH FLOOR, CHRISTIAN BASTI, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI, DIST-KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN), ASSAM, PIN-781005 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A J SARMA Advocate for the Respondent :

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

22.01.2024 Heard Mr. G. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition, styled as a contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and the provisions of the Gauhati High Court Rules alleging non-compliance of the directions made in an order dated

16.10.2023 passed by this Court in a writ petition, WP(C) 5708/2023. It is noticed that in the said writ petition, WP(C) 5708/2023, the petitioner was impleaded as party respondent no. 10. It is also relevant to quote the following observations made in the order dated 16.10.2023 (supra); "If the land owners continue to feel aggrieved in the matter event thereafter, it would be open for them to approach this Court again, by filing appropriate writ petition." Thus, it is evident from the order dated 16.10.2023 that if the petitioners Page No.# 3/3 as the land owners continue to feel aggrieved in the matter, then liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach this Court by filing appropriate writ petition. However, instead of preferring a writ petition in compliance of the direction made in the order dated 16.10.2023 (supra), the petitioners have preferred a petition, styled as a contempt petition. In the above view of the matter, the instant contempt petition is not entertained and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Liberty, however, stands reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate writ petition, if so advised.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant