:ORDER:

1. This Contempt Case has been instituted alleging willful and deliberate violation of the interim order dated 21.09.2013 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 27583 of 2013.

2. Heard Mr. M. Samba Siva Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. A. Jagan, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present contempt proceedings have been initiated under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that respondent No. 4 has willfully and deliberately violated the interim direction granted by this Court in W.P. No. 27583 of 2013, whereby a status quo order was issued with respect to the petition schedule property.

4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contends that respondent No. 4 has not committed any act amounting to contempt. It is submitted that the respondent police authorities merely extended police protection at the request of the Municipal authorities to facilitate removal of unauthorized occupations and illegal encroachments in order to maintain public order. It is further contended that respondent No. 4 neither initiated nor executed any demolition activity. Additionally, it is submitted that upon verification with the Tahsildar, Bhainsa, it was found that no premises bearing the door numbers as claimed by the petitioners existed in the official Revenue or Municipal records. Therefore, it is argued that there was no question of violation of the interim order, much less a willful or deliberate one.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the material available on record.

6. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the interim order directing maintenance of status quo has been violated by respondent No. 4. It is, however, well settled that in order to establish civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, there must be a willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court. The element of wilfulness is a sine qua non for sustaining a charge of contempt.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha (2003) 11 SCC 1 held that “wilful disobedience implies a deliberate, conscious and intentional violation of the court’s order.” Similarly, in Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5 SCC 352, it was observed that mere disobedience is not sufficient; the disobedience must be proved to be willful and intentional.

8. In the present case, the interim order restrained the police authorities from interfering with the petition schedule property. However, the explanation furnished by the respondent authorities indicates that:

(i) the alleged properties could not be identified in official records;

(ii) respondent No. 4 did not undertake any demolition activity; and

(iii) the role of the police was confined to providing assistance to the Municipal authorities in maintaining law and order.

9. There is no material placed before this Court to demonstrate that respondent No. 4 acted in conscious disregard of the Court’s order. On the contrary, the record suggests absence of direct involvement in the alleged act of demolition.

10. It is a settled principle that contempt jurisdiction is quasi-criminal in nature and must be exercised with caution. In the absence of cogent evidence establishing such wilfulness, contempt proceedings cannot be sustained.

11. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the material on record falls short of establishing any willful or deliberate disobedience on the part of respondent No. 4. Consequently, no case is made out for initiating or continuing contempt proceedings.

12. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, s