Contempt proceedings cannot address merits of disputes but focus solely on willful disobedience of explicit court orders.

ORDER :

Surepalli Nanda, J.

Heard learned Senior Designate Counsel Sri S. Ravi appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri M. Hamsa Raj, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri G. Sudershan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

2. The present contempt case is filed assailing non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court dated 27.02.2004 in WP No.22646 of 2002.

3. The operative portion of the order dated 27.02.2004 passed in WP No.22646 of 2002 is extracted hereunder:

"For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for."

4. The prayer sought for in WP No.22646 of 2002 is extracted hereunder:

"Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the auction proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent by its advertisement dated 24.07.2002 and subsequent acceptance of the bid from the 2nd respondent for Rs.1.2 crores is illegal, unconstitutional, inequitable and opposed to the principles of natural justice especially Condition No.29 of the Tender Form."

5. It is the specific case of the petitioner in the present contempt case that inspite of several representations for implementation of the order of this Court dated 27.02.2004 passed in WP No.22646 of 2002 though the same had attained finality, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had preferred W.As., and also SLPs., and failed in obtaining favourable orders, the respondents however are not delivering the possession of Plot No.26, IDA, Balanagar, Industrial Estate, Hyderabad, and that the conduct of respondent No.1 in not taking possession of the property admeasuring 5,111 Sq. yards in Plot No.26 of IDA, Balanagar, Industrial Estate, Hyderabad and the conduct of respondent Nos.2 and 3 being in possession and in not returning the property to the petitioner amounts to willfully disobeying the High Court's order dated 27.02.2024 in WP No.22646 of 2022 and the said action amounts to civil contempt. Hence this case.

6. The counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1, relevant Paragraph Nos.16 and 17 are extracted hereunder :

"16. It is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble High Court has passed the following order in WP No.22646 of 2002 "The writ petition is allowed as prayed for" and the prayer in the writ petition is "Declare the Auction proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent by its advertisement dated 24.07.2002 and subsequent acceptance of bid from 2nd respondent as illegal". However, there is no order to handover the possession of the unit to the petitioner herein. The orders passed in Writ Appeal No.784 of 2004 and Writ Appeal No.1142 of 2004 by this Hon'ble Court are "having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the cogent reasons recorded in the judgment under appeal, we discern no error in the application of law or exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in this appeals. The writ appeals are accordingly in the circumstances no cause". The Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the following order in the SLP Nos.30380 of 2011 and 7928-7929 of 2012 "we do not find any legal and valid ground for interference this special leave petitions are dismissed". And the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the review applications i.e., MA No.867 of 2018 with the following order. "We find no reason to entertain this application which is accordingly dismissed". Therefore, it is clear from the above judgments that the Hon'ble Courts have only set aside the sale proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent, however there is no order to the effect that possession of the unit has to be handed over to the petitioner herein.

17. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is due an amou