JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the judgment and order dated 18.12.2018 passed by writ Court in Writ Petition No. 36399 (MS) of 2018 Inre; Lalsar and Anr Vs. Tehsildar (Judicial), District Balrampur and ors, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition. By the said order, the writ Court had directed the Court concerned for expediting the proceedings of impleadment application dated 14.11.2017 and also the proceeding of case under Section 34 of the U.P Land Revenue Act and to decide the same within a specified time in case there is no legal impediment. It is contended that the copy of the said order was served upon in the Court of officer concerned on 28.12.2018 and since then despite lapse of more than a year and despite lapse of the time framed by the writ Court neither the impleadment application has been decided nor the said case has been decided and, consequently the officer concerned runs in contempt of the order of writ Court dated 18.12.2018.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and having perused the records including the order sheet of the said case which has been filed as annexure 3 to the petition it comes out that invariably the lawyers have been abstaining from work. On a few occasion the officer has also been busy in administrative work apart from the fact that the officer concerned has also been transferred. Once this Court had directed for deciding of the case within a period of four months provided there is no legal impediment yet taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances of no work having taken place invariably on account of lawyer's strike it cannot be said that there is any deliberate and willful disobedience and defiance of the order passed by the writ Court dated 18.12.2018.

4. Taking into consideration the repeated strikes of lawyers, learned counsel for the applicant was asked as to whether he would like to implead the Bar Association as a party inasmuch as it is the Advocates who are standing as an impediment in compliance of the judgment and order 18.12.2018 passed by this Court as the matter pending before the Tehsildar concerned could not proceed on account of repeated strikes. However, learned counsel for the applicant out rightly refused to implead the Bar Association as party.

5. In this view of the matter, the Court may peruse the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court per which there has to be deliberate and wilful disobedience by the contemnor in order to make out a case for contempt.

6. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Bandopadbyay and others versus State of West Bengal and another reported in AIR 1969 SC 189 has held as under :-

"9. A question whether there is contempt of court or not is a serious one. The court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation. It behoves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemner must be punished. It must be realised that our system of courts often results in delay of one kind or another. The remedy for it is reform and punishment departmentally. Punishment under the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged."

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Kar versus The Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his companion Justices of the Orissa High Court and others reported in AIR 1961 SC 1367 has held as under :

"7. Before a subordinate court can be found guilty of disobeying the order of the superior court and thus to have committed contempt of court, it is necessary to show that the disobedience w