O R D E R (ORAL)

As per: Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (Judicial)

1. The applicant has filed the present Civil Contempt under Article 215 of Constitution of India read with Section 2(b) and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (For short "The Act, 1971) before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for willful disobedience of order dated 31.01.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1227/2025.

2. The contempt petition filed before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi arising out of interim order dated 31.01.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1227/2025 and vide order dated 26.11.2025, the contempt petition CONT.CAS(C) 494/2025 was transferred along with W.P. (C) No. 1227/2025 vide order dated 26.11.2025 to this Tribunal to be heard along with O.A.

3. The present C.P. has been numbered as C.P./105/2026 in O.A./3382/2025, Neha vs. Shri Sanjay Jaju.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that vide order dated 31.01.2025 in W.P. (C) No. 1227/2025, respondents were directed to consider the requisition/request sent by respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 10.06.2024 and take a decision thereon within a period of four weeks from that day, i.e., 31.01.2025.

5. Mr. R. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents submits that order dated 31.01.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1227/2025 in question has been duly complied with vide compliance order dated 01.04.2025 and a copy of said compliance order dated 01.04.2025 has been communicated to the applicant and there is no willful disobedience. So also tenders unconditional apology for inadvertent delay, if any, due to bona fide reasons and procedural aspects.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have not considered the grievance of the applicant in letter and spirit and also submits that representation of the applicant has been considered and rejected vide compliance order dated 01.04.2025 and he has received a copy of the same.

7. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties. We have considered the matter.

8. The short issue that arises for consideration is whether-“there is willful disobedience of the order dated 31.01.2025 in W.P. (C) No. 1227/2025 pending before this Tribunal re-numbered as O.A./3382/2025 on the part of the respondents to consider the pending representation without entering into the merits of the case as the speaking order dated 01.04.2025 has already been passed in the present matter?”

RULE OF LAW

9. In order to appreciate the claim of both the parties, we deem it proper to refer to relevant provisions of "Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short - The Act, 1971)" and refer the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(A) The disobedience of the orders of the Court in order to constitute contempt must be willful. The statutory definition in Section 2 (b) of “The Act, 1971”, the essential feature in order to constitute contempt, the disobedience must be willful. The definition of civil-contempt envisaged in sec 2 (b) of The Act, 1971 reads as:

"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;"

[emphasis supplied]

Case Law

(i) In the case of Director of Education, Uttaranchal and Others Vs. Ved Prakash Joshi and Others, (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 98, Their Lordships in paragraph 7 held as under:

"7. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. A similar view was taken in K.G. Derasari v. Union of India¹. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned wi