Back
2004 Supreme(All) 199
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. P. MEHROTRA
HARI HAR SINGH S/o MAHIPAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
NIROTI LAL GUPTA - Respondents
C. M. C. P. 615 Of 1993
Decided On : 02/04/2004
A.K.TEWARI, S.K.SAXENA
Mere disobedience to a court order does not constitute contempt unless it is found to be wilful.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Compliance with Court Order - The court held that mere disobedience to any judgment, order etc. will not make a person liable for contempt of Court. It is only when such disobedience is found to be wilful, that the person will be liable for contempt of court. In the present case, the order dated 10-2-1993 has been complied with by the opposite parties and the delay in compliance was neither deliberate nor wilful. Therefore, the opposite parties cannot be held liable for contempt of this Court.
Fact of the Case:
The contempt petition was filed for wilfully violating a stay order passed by the Court in a writ petition. The opposite parties were alleged to have delayed compliance with the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite parties had complied with the order and the delay in compliance was neither deliberate nor wilful. Therefore, they cannot be held liable for contempt of Court.
Issues: Alleged wilful violation of a stay order and delay in compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere disobedience to any judgment, order etc. will not make a person liable for contempt of Court. It is only when such disobedience is found to be wilful, that the person will be liable for contempt of court.
Final Decision: The notices issued to the opposite parties are discharged, and the contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.
( 1 ) THE present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971, inter-alia, praying for punishing the opposite parties for wilfully violating the stay order dated 10-2-1993 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993 (Hari Har Singh v. The Chief Election Officer, U. P. Nirvachan directorate ).
( 2 ) A perusal of the said order dated 10-2-1993 passed in the aforesaid writ petition shows that by the said order, it was. inter-alia, directed that the representation of the petitioner be decided by Zila Adhikari/zila niravachan Adhikari, Etawah, within the period mentioned in the said order.
( 3 ) BY the order dated 31-3-1993, this court directed for issuance of notice on the contempt petition.
( 4 ) IN response to the notice, a counter affidavit sworn on 13th July, 1993 was filed by Brijendra Pal (opposite party No. 2 ). A supplementary counter affidavit sworn on 1-2-1994 was also filed by the said Brijendra pal (Opp. party No. 2 ).
( 5 ) IT is, inter-alia, stated in paragraph 4 of the aforesaid counter affidavit sworn on 13th July, 1993 that the representation of the petitioner applicant, as per the directions contained in the said order dated 10-2-1993 passed by this Court in the aforesaid civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993, had been decided by Shri K. S. Atoria, the then District Magistrate on 6-7-1993, and that the petitioner-applicant had been reinstated with all benefits by the order dated 2-7-1993. Certain further facts were brought on record by the aforesaid supplementary counter affidavit sworn on 1-2-1994.
( 6 ) REASONS for the delay in complying with the said order dated 10-2-1993 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993 have also been stated in the said counter affidavit and the said supplementary counter affidavit.
( 7 ) I have heard Shri A. K. Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties, and perused the record.
( 8 ) IT is not disputed by Shri A. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant that the compliance of the said order dated 10-2-1993 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993 has been made by the opposite parties.
( 9 ) IT is thus, evident that the said order dated 10-2-1993 has been complied with by the opposite parties. Reasons for the delay in complying with the said order dated 10-2-1993 have been stated in the said counter affidavit and the said supplementary counter affidavit, and it is evident that the delay is neither deliberate nor wilful.
( 10 ) IT is note worthy that Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, inter-alia, requires wilful disobedience to any judgment, order etc. Section 2 (b) is quoted below:"2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court; (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
( 11 ) THEREFORE, mere disobedience to any judgment, order etc. will not make a person liable for contempt of Court. It is only when such disobedience is found to be wilful, that the person will be liable for contempt of court.
( 12 ) IN the present case, as noted above, the order dated 10-2-1993 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993 has been complied with by the opposite parties. Further, the delay in making such compliance was neither deliberate nor wilful.
( 13 ) HENCE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the opposite parties cannot be held liable for contempt of this Court.
( 14 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the notices issued to
