No willful disobedience was established when the Sub Divisional Magistrate complied with the court's direction.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner had, in a petition filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, alleged that an unauthorised gate was constructed by the 3rdrespondent in WP(C) No. 4009 of 2025. Initially, a conditional order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, but the Sessions Court, set aside the said order in a challenge raised by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction to finalise the proceedings initiated underSection 133of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. By the judgment dated 25.02.2025 in WP(C) No.4009 of 2025, this Court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to consider and dispose of the complaint of the petitioner within 90 days. Thereafter, Annexure-A2 order was passed on 27.05.2025.

2. Petitioner contends that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not complied with the judgment as she had, by the order, delegated further steps to the Tahsildar, which is in violation of the directions of this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

4. On a perusal of Annexure-A2, it is evident that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had taken a decision, in compliance with the judgment of this Court. Whether the decision is correct or not is a matter, which cannot be decided in contempt proceedings, as it will have to be raised by the aggrieved person in an appropriate proceeding. Suffice to say, by virtue of Annexure-A2, the Sub Divisional Magistrate had concluded the proceedings under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it cannot be held that there is any wilful disobedience or violation of the orders of this Court.

In view of the above, I find no instance of contempt arising against the respondent. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed.

Sd/-