JUDGMENT Khan, J.
1. Respondents are charged of disobeying the orders passed by this court dated 23.3.93 and having committed contempt. Whether they are guilty is the question.
2. Petitioner, a registered society filed writ petition (CWP No. 1657/93) for restraining R-2 from handing over any part of the Asiad Village Complex including leasing out of the Asiad tower and areas appurtenant thereto to anyone. It also sought interim restraint order in CM No. 2675/93 on similar lines.
3. Respondents were put on notice in this petition on 23.3.1993 when an interim stay order was also passed which is at the root of controversy and which is reproduced hereunder for proper appreciation.
"The respondents are restrained from leasing out or alienating any part of the Asiad Village Complex without the permission of the court till the next date."
Petitioners allege that respondents had blatantly violated this order by auctioning the Asiad Tower for running of a restaurant to R-3 and had thus committed contempt of court. Their senior counsel Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi claimed that they had done so deliberately and willfully and they were therefore, liable to be punished for contempt. He asserted that Asiad Tower was very much a part of Asiad Village Complex and was, therefore, covered by the terms of the court order and in any case if respondents entertained any doubt about this, they should have sought clarification from this court before going ahead with their auction plans. He cited Supreme Court judgment in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh to suggest that misunderstanding or a party's own understanding of the court order was not a permissible defense in a contempt action.
4. Both, official and private respondents have filed their reply explaining their position. It is denied by them that they had deliberately or willfully disobeyed the court order in question. It is pointed out by them that petitioner's prayer in both the writ petition and the interim stay application (CM 2675/93) was to restrain the DDA from leasing out or alienating any part of the Asiad Village Complex including the Asiad Tower and its surrounding areas which by itself left no scope for doubt that even they were regarding the Asiad Tower different from the Asiad Village Complex like its surrounding areas. Therefore since the interim restraint order specifically covered Asiad Village Complex only and the prayer in respect of Asiad Tower and its surrounding areas was impliedly declined. This is buttressed by dismissal of petitioner's allied CM No. 5267/93 also on 27.11.1993 complaining of violation of court order dated 23.3.1993 when the DDA had issued advertisement for auctioning of the Asiad Tower. It is also avered by them that they had taken due care to ascertain the legal position in the matter and had sought advice from the Standing Counsel of DDA who had opined on the same lines and on which basis a second advertisement notice was issued and the auction process subsequently completed which action was later affirmed in CWP No. 3319/2002 vide judgment dated 25.9.2002 and, therefore, respondents could not be charged of committing any breach of the court order dated 23.3.1993.
5. It requires to be made clear at the very outset that contempt power was exercisable in the interest of general public and to ensure that the faith and confidence in the administration of justice was not eroded. It was so invokable to protect and safeguard the majesty of law and the dignity of court and the integrity of the court orders and not for enabling the parties to settle their personal scores or to gain an upper hand or advantage in litigative spirit. A contempt of court was the matter between the court and the alleged contemner and a litigant inviting the attention of the court only enjoyed the status of an informer and did not assume the role of a complainant or that of prosecutor in the contempt proceedings. He could not insist upon punishing an alleged contemner irrespective of whether or not court felt satisfied about it because what was contumacious was for the court to decide.
6. With this preface and given regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear to us that respondents had willfully or deliberately disobeyed court order dated 23.3.1993 restraining them from alienating any part of the Asiad Village Complex. This is so because petitioner's own prayer in the writ petition and the CM was suggestive of the fact that they had treated the Asiad Tower and the surrounding areas differently from the Asiad Village Complex and since the restraint order covered only the Asiad Village Complex. Respondents could not be held responsible for dealing with the Asiad Tower.
7. Apart from this, this court had already dismissed petitioner's alleged CM No. 5267/93 on the issue affirming the action of DDA which was also supported later by the judgment in CWP No. 3319/2002 filed by one V.P. Singh. Regard being had to all this it could not be said that respondents had deliberately or willfully disobeyed the court in question. Because even if it was assumed that the Asiad Tower formed a part of the Asiad complex, they had taken sufficient precaution to seek legal advice and had evolved the requisite understanding of the court order on the strength of orders passed by this court in petitioners allied CM 5267/93 and also CWP No. 3319/2002.
8. The legal position enunciated in the Supreme Court judgment cited at the Bar does not persuade us to take any contrary view in the matter because the court had held the contemners guilty in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and after finding that the contemner had deliberately avoided the implementation of the court order. The court found:-
"The defense of understanding is not only moonshine but a deliberate attempt to overreach this court's order and as such willfulness in the matter of disregard of this court's order is apparent on the face of it and we are not prepared to accept the same as a defense of an action for deliberate and willful disregard of an order of the court. We find that the actions on the part of the respondent authorities are not only unreasonable but deliberate and spiteful and that too in spite of a specific direction in all the five judgments so far obtained by the petitioners in their favor. Avoidance is written large and it would be difficult for us to consume the same without any particular rhyme or reason."
9. Therefore, even going by the terms of this judgment, it all depended upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the defense of understanding of a court order put up by the contemner pointed out to his deliberate attempt to disregard the order or whether his understanding was bonafide and genuine.
10. In the present case, respondents' understanding was based on the petitioners prayer made in their writ petition and stay application and also on the orders passed by this court in their allied CM and judgment in CWP No. 3319/2002. They cannot be as such charged of having set up an understanding which had no basis or which was aimed at defeating the court order. It would have more desirable if they had sought the clarification in the matter but once their action was affirmed by this court in colateral proceedings, that should set the controversy at rest for good.
11. Viewed thus, Petition is resultantly dismissed and rule issued against the contemnors is discharged and proceedings dropped.