Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
Jeevan Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Rajesh Negi & Ors. - Respondents
COPC No.867/2024
Decided On : 01-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Addl. Advocate General for Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate
Contempt proceedings require proof of willful disobedience to a court order, which was not established as respondents lacked knowledge of the order.
Headnote:
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 10 and 12 - Article 215 of the Constitution of India - Petition for contempt proceedings against respondents for disobeying court order dated 27.08.2024 - Respondents claimed lack of knowledge of the order and provided plausible explanations for actions taken - Court emphasized the need for willful disobedience to establish contempt. (Paras 13-16)
(B) Civil Contempt - Definition and nature - Civil contempt defined as willful disobedience to court orders - Proceedings are quasi-criminal, requiring clear evidence of intent to disobey. (Paras 13-14)
(C) Awareness of Order - Court ruled that without knowledge of the prohibitory order, no contempt can be established - Respondents' lack of awareness negated the claim of contempt. (Paras 15-16)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners alleged that respondents continued construction despite a stay order, claiming willful disobedience. Respondents provided evidence of their absence due to a family emergency and lack of knowledge of the order.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of willful disobedience and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The main issues were whether the respondents were aware of the stay order and if their actions constituted contempt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that contempt requires proof of willful disobedience, which was not established in this case.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The present petition has been preferred under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating the proceedings against the respondents for having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the order dated 27.08.2024.
2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the case are that the some of the residents of Village Sharli had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. On 29.06.2024, a status quo order was passed by the trial Court in the aforesaid suit. The same had been granted till the next date of hearing i.e. 05.08.2024. As on 29.06.2024, the status of work is depicted in Annexure R-3/A atpage 69 of the paper book. Thereafter, the work had been stopped.
4. Being aggrieved of the status quo order dated 29.06.2024, the present respondent No.3 had preferred a CMPMO No.402 of 2024 against the aforesaid interim order. The said petition was withdrawn with liberty reserved in accordance with law on 23.07.2024. Thereafter, an appropriate appeal against the interim order dated 29.06.2024 was filed before the learned Additional District Judge on 29.07.2024. The same came to be allowed on 09.08.2024 and immediately thereafter work on the site was resumed.
5. The order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge was challenged by the present petitioners by preferring CMPMO No.500 of 2024, in the case at hand. On 27.08.2024, an interim order was passed by this Court, whereby order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Additional District Sessions Judge, was stayed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that from a perusal of order dated 27.08.2024, it is evident that the respondents, in the case at hand, were aware of the stay of the operation and execution of the order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the Additional District Judge. Despite the same, it is alleged that construction was carried on by the present respondents. In order to demonstrate the same, photographs (Annexure C-2) have been placed on record. Other than the aforesaid, a Rapat Rojnamcha dated 28.08.2024, recorded at 9:47 PM has been placed on record.
7. Per contra, respondents have filed their replies, at the very outset unconditional and unqualified apology has been tendered by the respondents. Respondent No.3 is the Contractor, who was executing the work. In his reply, he has submitted that on 27.08.2024 on account of demise of a close relative (grandmother) at Solan, he was compelled to leave the construction site. Subsequent thereto, the body of the deceased was brought to his native Village Bali Koti for performing the last rites. The same were conducted on 28.08.2024. In order to demonstrate the aforesaid, death certificate of his grandmother has been placed on record to show that the last rites of the grandmother of respondent No.3 were performed at Bali Koti.
8. Other than the aforesaid, it is submitted that on 27.08.2024 in the absence of respondent No.3, at the construction site, all preparations for installing the concrete slab and shuttering had been done. Besides, material required for the scheduled installation of the concrete slab had been collected. The scaffolding had been installed and the cement gravel mixture was ready to be mixed.
9. In the early morning of 28.08.2024, the cement, sand, and gravel mixture for the concrete slab was mixed and put in place. The same post mixing could not have been stored. The photographs in this respect depicting the ground work done for installation of the concrete slab and the executing/putting in place the slab is evident from the photographs appended along with reply filed by respondent No.3 as Annexure R3-D.
10. Insofar as respondent No.1 is concerned, suffice it to state that the said replying-respondent has no role in the construction work, rather the work of construction is being done by the Executive Enginee
