Interim orders cease upon the issuance of final judgments, impacting the enforceability of prior mandates.

ORDER

1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining the willful disobedience in implementing the Order dated 04.04.2024 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.7883 of 2024.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court passed interim orders on 04.04.2024 suspending the operation of purchase order dated 06.02.2024. Therefore, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not proceed with the purchase order. But in the instant case the respondent Nos.2 and even though the purchase order was suspended, they proceeded further and the 3^rd respondent supplied the material pursuant to the purchase order dated 06.02.2024 and the 2^nd respondent received the same and distributed the same and the said action of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 is deliberate violation of interim orders of this Court. As such they are liable for punishment under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act , 1971 (for short “the Act, 1971”).

3. Learned counsel further submits that the interim order passed by this Court neither vacated nor modified till 17.10.2024. Therefore, the interim orders dated 04.04.2024 are in existence and enforceable till final orders. Admittedly, in the present case the writ petition was dismissed on 18.10.2024, against which a Writ Appeal No.897/2024 was also preferred and the same was dismissed at the admission stage on 17.11.2024. He further asserts that even the violation of interim orders which are in force for specific period such violation is liable for contempt as per ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Samee Khan vs. Bindu Khan , 1998 SCC OnLine SC 570 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:

“12. But the position under rule 2A of Order 39 is different. Even if the injunction order was subsequently set aside the disobedience does not get erased. It may be a different matter that the rigour of such disobedience may be toned down if he order is subsequently set aside. for what purpose the property is to be attached in the case of disobedience of the order of injunction? Sub-rule (2) provides that if the disobedience or breach continues beyond one year from the date of attachment the court is empowered to sell the property under attachment and compensate the affected party from such sale proceeds. In other words, attachment will continue only till the breach continues or the disobedience persists subject to a limit of one year period. If the disobedience ceases to continue in the meanwhile the attachment also would cease. Thus even under Order 39 Rule 2A the attachment is a mode to compel the opposite party to obey the order of injunction. But detaining the disobedient party in civil prison is a mode of punishment for his being guilty of such disobedience.”

4. He also relied upon the judgment of High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Dr. D. Karunakar Reddy and others vs. G. Sandeep and others , 2024 SCC OnLine TS 1007 wherein it is observed thus:

“9.xxxxxx. The respondents No.1 and 2 were represented by their counsel and the order was passed in the Open Court in the presence of all the parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that the interim order was not communicated to the parties. xxxxxx. The ground taken by the respondents that they were not aware of the detailed order till 08.05.2023 until it was dispatched by the Court, is not acceptable. In the case of Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari vs. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, relief upon by the leraned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has culled out the principles as under:

40. xxxxx

41. xxxxx

42. xxxxx

43. The following conditions must be satisfied before a person can be held to have committed civil contempt: (i) there must be a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of