Lack of evidence of wilful disobedience is necessary to establish contempt of court.

( 1 ) THIS Contempt petition has been filed by the complainant for non-compliance of the order dated March 30, 2001 in Writ Petition nos. 12960-12970/2001 and W. P. Nos. 12887-12903/2001 passed by this Court.

( 2 ) IT is stated that despite direction vide order dated March 30, 2001, that the Bank should have applied its mind and found out whether the Scheme can be made applicable to the applicants who have completed 30 years of service, and till such time the Bank should not permit them to retire and release the amount to ineligible persons. But, the Bank has passed two orders one on March 30, 2001 and other on March 31, 2001, and thus committed contempt of Court, hence proper action should be taken with a further direction for not complying with the interim order dated March 30, 2001.

( 3 ) THIS contempt petition was filed on april 16, 2001. A show cause notice was issued on April 20, 2001. In response to the notice, statement of objection was filed by the first respondent-Bank denying the allegation as alleged. It is stated that respondent has the highest regard and full respect for the orders of the Court. The learned counsel for the Bank Sri sundarswamy Ramdas submits that the Bank has filed writ appeal against the interim order which is admitted and pending appeal. He also submits that the contempt case has been filed without verifying the fact and it is nothing but to harass the Bank authorities. There is no wilful disobedience in the order made and the contempt case is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that apart, the order has already been cormplied with.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the complainant Sri P. S. Rajagopal submits that in reply to the writ appeal filed by the Bank, the appellant has stated that the affidavit filed by sri S. R. Sherry is incorrect and he himself has stated that he was present in the meeting at bangalore but actually he was at Hubli. The learned counsel submits that petitioner complainant has moved a Criminal Contempt no. 38/2001 and till that contempt is finally heard, this case should not be heard. Learned counsel relied on the decision of Supreme court in Dr. H. Phunindre Singh and Others v. K. K. Sethi and Another, 1998 (8) SCC 640 wherein the order of the learned single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench but no stay was granted. Their Lordships observed that contempt petition should have been disposed of on merit instead of adjourning the case till the disposal of the appeal.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the Bank submits that when, the writ appeal is pending, the appeal should be decided first and further once the order impugned in contempt has been complied with, the question of contempt does not arise and it is not necessary to consider the issue of contempt. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in lalith Mathurv. L. Maheswara Rao, 2000 (10) scc 285 wherein, in a case, the High Court issued a direction for consideration of the respondents' representation. Their Lordships observed that the direction was carried out by the State and thereafter rejected the representation on merits. Instead of challenging the order in fresh Writ Petition, the petitioner took recourse to contempt petition which did not lie as order had already been complied with by the State Government which had considered the representation and rejected it on merit and dismissed the contempt petition. Counsel also submits that the criminal contempt has been filed only to delay the hearing of the appeal, though notice has not been issued. Therefore the writ appeal against the interim order should be heard first.

( 6 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and also perused the case-law cited above.

( 7 ) THE question before us is whether the bank authorities have committed contempt of order dated March 30, 2001, and what will be the effect of the appeal pending against the interim order and so also whether the