Md. Jakir Hussain and 2 Ors v. Rijumoni Sarma and 2 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010142332024 ooooooo undefined ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCont.Cas(C)/384/2024o MD.oJAKIRoHUSSAINoANDo2oORS.o S/O-oAMIRoHUSSAIN,oR/O-oVILL.-oRUHINIKASH,oP.OoANDoP.S.oDALGAON,o DIST.oDARRANG,oASSAM,oPIN-o784112. 2:oJAMIRoALI oS/O-oABULoHUSSAIN oVILL-oRUHINIKASH oP.O.oANDoP.S.oDALGAON oDIST.oDARRANG oASSAM oPIN-o784112. 3:oALIoAKBARoSHEIKH oS/O-oAZADoALI oR/O-oVILL.-oKONAKATAPARA oP.O.oANDoP.S.oDALGAON oDIST.oDARRANG oASSAM oPIN-o784112o VERSUSo RIJUMONIoSARMAoANDo2oORS.o THEoCHIEFoGENERALoMANAGERo(RE)oRURALoELECTRIFICATION,oBIJULEE BHAWAN,oPALTANBAZAR,oGUWAHATI-781001. 2:BIJOYoSHANKARoBARUA oTHEoCHIEFoGENERALoMANAGERo(PPoANDoD)oRURALoELECTRIFICATION oBIJULEEoBHAWANo PALTANBAZAR oGUWAHATI-781001. 3:DIGANTAoBORA oTHEoCHIEFoELECTRICALoOFFICER Page No.# 2/3 MANGALDAI ELECTRICAL CIRCLE MANGALDAI ASSAM PIN-784125 For the petitioners : Mr. S.A. Ahmed, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. B. Choudhury, Advocate For respondent Nos.1 & 2 – B E F O R E – HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 19-12-2024 (Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.) This contempt petition is filed by the petitioners complaining that the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by this Court in PIL 67/2023 has not been complied with. This Court vide order dated 18.10.2023 while disposing of PIL 67/2023 has granted liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the respondents for ventilating their grievances with further observation that a reasoned speaking order be passed on the representation and the same be communicated to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of submission of copy of the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a matter of fact, the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by this Court had been communicated to the concerned authorities vide letter dated 06.11.2023. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the representation filed by the petitioners has already been decided on 18.12.2024 by Page No.# 3/3 a reasoned speaking order. In view of the fact that the representation filed by petitioners has already been decided, we do not find any reason to continue with this contempt petition. Therefore, this contempt petition is disposed of. Notices issued earlier stand discharged. However, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the APDCL on their representation, they are always free to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant