IMPORTANT POINT
Willful disobedience of court order constitutes contempt.

Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant was the Sub-Divisional Officer Pichhore.

In the said capacity, he was a Specified Officer for determination of election disputes in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short, `the Rules) framed in terms of Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam (for short, `the Act).

3. Respondents 1 and 2 herein contested an election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khadoya, Block; Tehsil Pichhore. The second respondent was declared elected. Questioning the legality whereof, the first respondent filed an application for setting aside his election in the Court of Specified Officer, Pichhore. Upon hearing the parties, the Specified Officer directed recounting of all the votes polled in the said election. Relying on or on the basis of such re-counting, the election petition was dismissed.

4. Questioning the legality and/or validity of the said order, the first respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that the Specified Officer had no jurisdiction to direct re-counting of votes only on the ground that no objection was raised by the parties as prior thereto and that he was required to arrive at the conclusion that sufficient evidence had been brought on record by the parties for the said purpose.

It was also urged that such a judicial power could not have been delegated in favour of the Tehsildar. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by reason of a judgment and order dated 24.7.1996 allowed the said writ petition, setting aside the order of the Specified Officer and remitted the matter back to it directing the election petition to be decided within two months. It was furthermore directed that the Specified Officer should also decide the preliminary objections raised by the respondent in the Election Petition. The parties were directed to appear before it on 19.8.1996.

5. Despite the said order, however, no action thereon was taken. Notices were issued only on 23.10.1997.

By reason of an order dated 30.12.1997, the appellant who was holding the post of the Specified Officer/Sub-Divisional Officer at the relevant time, again directed for recounting of ballot papers. On the premise that by reason thereof the appellant had disobeyed the order of the High Court dated 24.7.1996, a contempt petition was filed by the first respondent. It was pointed out that neither the preliminary objection was heard nor any evidence was recorded. It was furthermore pointed out that despite the fact that the period of two months expired on or about 18.10.1996 but without obtaining an order of extension from the High Court, he issued the said order for recounting of the votes.

6. The High Court issued Rule Nisi on the said application. Appellant was directed to remain present in the court. It, however, stands admitted that for one reason or the other, he did not appear before the Court and bailable warrants of his arrest were issued for his appearance on 6.5.1998.

Appellant filed a show-cause in the said contempt proceedings. Upon hearing the parties, the appellant was found guilty of willful disobedience of the order of the High Court and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and his detention till the rising of the court, was directed.

7. An intra-court appeal preferred by the appellant thereagainst in terms of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was dismissed by reason of the impugned order dated 17.5.2005.

8. Mr. Banthia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the matter came up before the appellant only in 1997 whereupon he took all necessary steps to dispose of the proceedings before him. It was urged that failure on the part of the appellant to appear before the high Court pursuant to the dire