A slight delay in compliance with a court order does not amount to wilful disobedience, and merits of administrative decisions should be challenged through proper legal channels.

JUDGMENT

D.N. Patel, CJ. (Oral)--Proceedings have been conducted through video conferencing.

CM APPL.3169/2020 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application is disposed of.

CONT.CAS(C) 63/2020

1. Present contempt petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-

"a) Initiate contempt proceeding against the alleged contemnor for wilful and deliberate disobedience of order dated 02.05.2019 of this Hon'ble Court passed in the L.P.A. no.319/2015. And

b) Pass any other or further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. We have heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and looked into the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Present petition has been filed alleging non-compliance and wilful disobedience of the order dated 2nd May, 2019 (Annexure P-1 to the memo of this contempt petition), passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA 319/2015. Para 5 of the aforesaid order reads as under:

"5. In light of the above observations, learned counsel appearing for the DoE undertakes that the matter of sanction of grant-in- aid to the Primary Section of the Appellant School will be considered afresh by the DoE. The fresh decision of the DoE, uninfluenced by the earlier decision and in light of the above observations of this Court, be taken after giving a hearing to the School and getting any clarification/information or documents that may be necessary for such purpose. The fresh decision be taken not later than 30th June, 2019 and communicated to the Appellant School not later than one week thereafter. A copy of order be placed before this Court on the next date."

(emphasis supplied)

4. According to the Petitioners, there is a violation of the order passed by this Court inasmuch as a fresh decision was to be taken by Respondent No.1 not later than 30.06.2019, however, the decision was taken on 26.08.2019. It is also contended by learned counsel for the Petitioners that vide order dated 26.08.2019, the proposal for Grant-in-Aid has been rejected on several grounds and reading of the order would reflect that the grounds for rejection are more or less the same as in the earlier order and thus, the rejection order is in the teeth of the directions of the Division Bench, that the fresh decision of the Directorate of Education (DOE) would be uninfluenced by its earlier decision.

5. We have carefully perused the order dated 02.05.2019, passed by the Division Bench in LPA No.319/2015. Learned counsel appearing for DOE had undertaken before the Division Bench that the matter of sanction of Grant-in-Aid to the Primary Section of the concerned School will be considered afresh by DOE. The Division Bench had directed DOE to take a fresh decision, uninfluenced by the earlier decision and in the light of the observations of the Court, after giving a hearing to the School. It was further directed that the fresh decision would be taken not later than 30.06.2019 and communicated to the School not later than one week thereafter.

6. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that DOE has passed the order on 26.08.2019 albeit beyond the time granted by the Court. As per the directions given by the Division Bench, Respondent No.1 herein/DOE was to take a decision not later than 30.06.2019, whereas Respondent No.1 has taken a decision on 26.08.2019. No doubt, there is some delay by the concerned Respondent in complying with the directions of the Division Bench. However, it cannot be said that there is a wilful disobedience or a deliberate delay on the part of Respondent No.1 to pass a speaking order, so as to hold the concerned Respondent guilty of contempt.

7.