Meta Pixel
CNR: MLHC010010852018
DISPOSED

Wazidur Rahman vs Jude Rangku T Sangma

Case NumberCont.Cas(C)/35/2018
Date of Filing4 Dec 2018
Case TypeCont.Cas(C)
Last Hearing20 Feb 2019
State--
City--
Year of Filing2018

Party Details

Petitioner
  • WAZIDUR RAHMAN
Respondent
  • JUDE RANGKU T SANGMA

Case Summary

WAZIDUR RAHMAN filed Case No. Cont.Cas(C)/35/2018 in the Meghalaya High Court on 4 Dec 2018 against JUDE RANGKU T SANGMA. The case has undergone 5 hearings over 2 months. The case was disposed of on 20 Feb 2019. 4 orders have been issued in this matter.

Hearing History (5)

  • DISPOSED

    Judge: N/A

  • 20FEB 2019
    ORDERS

    Judge: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, CHIEF JUSTICE (FORMER)

  • 5FEB 2019
    ORDERS

    Judge: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, CHIEF JUSTICE (FORMER)

  • 6DEC 2018
    MOTION

    Judge: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, CHIEF JUSTICE (FORMER)

  • MOTION

    Judge: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, CHIEF JUSTICE (FORMER)

Orders (4)

Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Cont.

Cas (C) No.

35 of 2018 In WP(C) No.

349 of 2018 Date of order: 28.02.2019 Shri Wazidur Rahman Vs.

Shri Jude Rangku T.

Sangma Coram: Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Dr.

A.

Todi, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr.

A.G.

Momin, Adv.

Oral:- 1.

Disobedience of the judgment dated 10.10.2018 rendered in WP(C) No.

349 of 2018: Shri Wazidur Rahman vs.

State of Meghalaya & Ors., is alleged.

In terms of the judgment, respondent BDO was to accord consideration to the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the rules within a period of six weeks, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner did not happen, hence the instant motion initiating contempt proceedings.

2.

The respondent BDO has filed an affidavit dated 26.02.2019 stating therein that an amount of Rs.

17,02,950/- for the materials in the account of Bholarbhita East Village Employment Council (VEC) of which petitioner is the Secretary has been credited on 06.10.2018.

3.

The representation was filed by the petitioner in the capacity of the Secretary of the VEC as he then was, now there is some different Secretary of VEC but has claimed that he has invested the money from his own pocket, therefore, he is entitled to the same which in effect, is a separate issue to be taken up by him with the VEC in place.

There is no question of disobedience, therefore, contempt proceedings do not survive for any consideration.

Closure of the contempt proceedings will not preclude the petitioner from representing before the present VEC for release of payment, if any due to him.

4.

Disposed of as above. (Mohammad Yaqoob Mir) Chief Justice Meghalaya 28.02.2019 “Sylvana PS” Serial No.

04 Regular List