The Court held that mere non-compliance with interim orders does not constitute contempt unless it is demonstrated that such disobedience was wilful and deliberate.

JUDGMENT :

NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel/Additional Advocate General along with Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party.

2. Present contempt application has been filed to punish the opposite party for violation of order of Writ Court dated 12.05.2025 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6389 of 2024.

3. Brief facts of the case are that against the applicant, opposite party- District Magistrate, Hathras vide order dated 9.4.2025 has attached the applicant with District Head Quarter/ Collectorate, Hathras. The said order was challenged before this Court and Court has stayed the order dated 9.4.2025 as well as disciplinary proceeding with a finding that it is open for competent authority, namely, Nagar Palika Parishad, Hathras to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the applicant as per law. In compliance of order of Writ Court dated 12.05.2025, attachment order was withdrawn vide order dated 10.06.2025. Against the petitioner, a three member enquiry was also going on, which was not stayed on the ground that there is no stay upon enquiry proceeding. The enquiry was completed holding the applicant guilty and recommendation was made to lodge FIR upon which under the order of opposite party dated 27.05.2025, FIR has been lodged. Later on, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6389 of 2024 was disposed of vide order dated 12.05.2025 with certain observations and Court has also vacated the interim order earlier so granted.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that once the Court has stayed the attachment order as well as disciplinary proceeding, there is no occasion for three member committee to continue with the enquiry so earlier started and further, opposite party should never pass the order of lodging of FIR based upon said enquiry as it was in teeth of interim order of Writ Court dated 12.05.2025. Therefore, such conduct of opposite party is a case of wilful disobedience of interim order of Writ Court dated 12.05.2025. She also submitted that though the petition was disposed of, but in light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla & another Vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. Etc.; 1997 0 Supreme (SC) 299 as well as of this Court in the matter of Cantonment Exec. Officer, Cantonment Board, Meerut and another Vs. Smt. Puspa Devi and others passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 380 of 2001 dated 29.01.2014, act of contempt shall be considered on the date of passing of order and mere disposal of petition may not exempt the opposite party contemnor from the contempt proceeding. Therefore, this Court may summon the opposite party and punish under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

5. Per contra, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel has opposed the submissions and submitted that it is not a case of wilful disobedience. Immediately after interim order of Writ Court dated 12.05.2025, attachment order was withdrawn and so far as enquiry is concerned that is not arising out of disciplinary proceeding rather it was only a fact finding enquiry upon which there was no stay order of Writ Court and in the said enquiry, applicant was found guilty, therefore, direction was issued to lodge FIR. Lodging of FIR is not the part of disciplinary proceeding. He next submitted that after order of Writ Court, Director, Urban Local Bodies Directorate, Lucknow has issued an office letter dated 28.0