The Government must act as a single entity; inter-departmental disputes or administrative delays between departments cannot be used as a justification to deny or delay the implementation of a court order in favor of a citizen.

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

Date : 22.04.2026

Mr. P.N. Goswami, the learned Additional Advocate General who is also the Standing Counsel for the Forest Department submitted that on account of the elections held on 09.04.2026 and the Model Code of Conduct that came into force on 15.03.2026, adequate steps could not be taken by the Forest Department so that the forest royalty which has been deposited to the Forest Department could be verified and then reimbursed to the PWD, so that the said amount could be disbursed to the petitioner.

2. This Court has also taken note of the various orders in the records, and it appears therefrom that a stand has been taken by the officials of the PWD who are the contemnors in the present proceedings that upon collection of the forest royalty, the same was deposited with the Forest Department and it is under such circumstances, the PWD is not in a position to refund the forest royalty payable to the petitioners pursuant to the orders passed by this Court.

3. This Court has given anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate Generals appearing on behalf of the Forest Department as well as the PWD Department. It is a settled principle of law that the Government must speak in one voice and on account of their inter-departmental issues, the petitioners who are entitled to the amounts on the basis of the orders passed by this Court cannot be denied or delayed. Such delay or denial would be contrary to Rule of law as well as would undermine the Majesty of this Court.

4. The fact that the PWD has deducted the forest royalty from the petitioners are not in dispute and the PWD claims that the same were deposited to the Forest Department. The directions passed in the orders for which compliance was sought for by way of the present proceedings have not be adhered to though time limit were prescribed in the orders. It is also notable to mention that the present batch of contempt proceedings are already 8 (eight) years old.

5. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that not refunding the forest royalty by the concerned departments, on the plea that one department has not reimbursed the amount and the other has not verified, appears to be too lame an excuse which is neither in right earnest nor is in consonance to the Rule of law.

6. Accordingly, this Court fixes the present batch of contempt proceedings on 03.06.2026.

7. It is observed that if the amounts to which the petitioners are entitled to on account of the orders for which compliance are sought for in the present proceedings are not refunded to the petitioners in the meantime, this Court would be initiating contempt proceedings against the erring officials of both the PWD and the Forest Department.

8. This Court further observes that ensuring compliance to the orders passed by this Court is between the Court and the Contemnors. Both the learned Additional Advocate Generals appearing for the Forest Department and the PWD Department, i.e. Mr. P.N. Goswami and Mr. B. Gogoi respectively shall provide the names of the present incumbents holding the posts of Chief Engineer, PWD, and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on the next date. Additionally, the officials for whose inactions the amounts till date could not be refunded to the petitioners be also placed before this Court.

9. The Registry shall provide a copy of the present order to Mr. P.N. Goswami and Mr. B. Gogoi, both the Additional Advocate Generals of Assam for needful compliance.