Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SUDESH BANSAL, ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Sajjan Kumar Agarwal S/o Ramavarar Singrodia – Appellant
Versus
Om Prakash Bairwa Commissioner, College Education, Jaipur – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Though, both the contempt petitions have been listed in the defect’s category, however, on the prayer of counsel for petitioners, both petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common Order.
2. In both the contempt petitions, petitioners have alleged disobedience of the final judgment dated 06.11.2015 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 663/2015, State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. The Management Committee Sh. Bhagwan Das Todi College qua petitioners.
3. Indisputably, both the petitioners did not file any appeal before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal or writ petition before the High Court, for adjudication of their dues, and have preferred these contempt petitions, alleging disobedience of the directions issued in case of Bhagwan Das Todi (supra).
4. At the outset, counsel for petitioners does not dispute that the issue of disobedience as raised in these contempt petitions, is squarely covered by the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1666/2018, Dr. Anil Kumar Mathur Vs. Ashutosh A.T. Pednekar, Commissioner, College Education & Special Secretary, and other connected
Contempt proceedings cannot determine individual claims without prior adjudication; the court's role is limited to assessing willful disobedience of specific orders.
In contempt proceedings, the court has limited jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate claims beyond compliance issues as defined in prior orders, reaffirming the need for independent adjudication in sepa....
Wilful disobedience, as an essential element of civil contempt, requires a high standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and involves a mental element of intentional, conscious, and calculated condu....
Contempt of court requires willful disobedience of a court order; mere delay, especially under extenuating circumstances, does not constitute contempt.
The court found no grounds for contempt as the government complied with orders despite delays, emphasizing compliance assessment only.
Failure to reinstate and pay back wages constituted a continuing wrong, allowing the contempt petition to be filed beyond the limitation period.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
