IMPORTANT POINT
Willful disobedience requires a deliberate and intentional act, and genuine inability or actions not done with a bad purpose do not amount to willful disobedience.

ORDER :

1. Since the base and origin of these three Contempt Petitions is one and the same being the impugned Order dated 16.1.2006 passed in W.P. No.5190/1999 (Rajesh Dhody Vs. State of M.P. and Others) and the Petitioner in these Contempt Petitions also being the same person, these three Contempt Petitions were clubbed together, heard together and the same are being disposed of by this common Order.

2. The Petitioner was granted lease for mining minor mineral over the subject land on 7.8.1997. He filed W.P. No.584/1998 on the ground that the area over where he was granted mining lease was encroached by some private persons, which stood disposed of by the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide Order dated 30.4.1998 (Annexure C-1 in CP No.435/2015) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the Collector, Durg indicating that there was no encroachment on the lease area and assuring that the area covered under the lease deed is not encroached upon by any private individual. However, since the grievance of the Petitioner was still not redressed, he again went into filing another writ petition being W.P. No.1170/1998 on the ground that Respondents No.1 to 3 therein were interfering with his mining operation and the Madhya Pradesh High Court also disposed of the said writ petition vide Order dated 31.3.1999 (Annexure C-2 in CP No.435/2015) observing that if a complaint is made to the Collector and he in turn refuses to take action, the Petitioner can certainly make a complaint against the Collector for his non-action, but not before filing a complaint before the Collector and the Petitioner would be free to ventilate his grievance before the Collector and if such application is filed by the Petitioner, the same shall be decided by the Collector in accordance with law. Subsequently, the Petitioner again moved a writ petition being W.P. No.5190/1999 and this time the grievance of the Petitioner was that though he had made a complaint before the Collector, but the authorities had failed to remove the encroachment over the leased out mining area within the radius of 300 metre as per the statutory mandate fixed. This Court ultimately vide Order dated 16.1.2006 (Annexure C-3 in CP No.435/2015) allowed the said writ petition directing the Respondent authorities to remove all the encroachments made within the radius of 300 meters within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the said Order. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Order dated 16.1.2006, the State moved an unsuccessful Review Petition No.37/2006 to be dismissed on 4.3.2014 and therefore they chose to file W.A. No.191/2014 which also proved to be unsuccessful to them as it was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 26.11.2014 (Annexure C-5 in CP No.435/2015) holding it as frivolous. This gave another reason to the State to move ahead to the Supreme Court in SLP (CC) No.15678/2015 which also did not give expected result to the State as it also stood dismissed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court vide Order dated 31.8.2015.

3. Meanwhile, the Petitioner had also filed Contempt Petition No.139/2006 for non-compliance of Order dated 16.1.2006 passed in W.P. No.5190/1999. Another Contempt Petition No.435/2015 was also filed by the Petitioner raising the grievance that instead of complying with the Order dated 16.1.2006 passed in W.P. No.5190/1999, he was served with a Show-Cause-Notice dated 2.7.2015 (Annexure C-6 in CP No.435/2015) which is absolutely illegal and without authority of law and amounts to willful disobedience of the orders passed by the Court. Subsequently, one more Contempt Petition No.59/2016 was preferred by the Petitioner on the ground that though Writ Appeal and the SLP filed by the State both have been dismissed, the Petitioner was issued with a Show-Cause-Notice dated 2.7.2015 against which Contempt Petition No.435/2015 has been filed but after receipt of the notice of the said Contempt Petition, the Respondents-C