Village Sai Post Office Ballera vs State Of H.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 2612 HP

                                                            .
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA





                     ON THE 5th DAY OF MAY, 2022.





                               BEFORE

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

         CIVIL ORIGINAL PETITION CONTEMPT (TRIBUNAL) No.589 of 2020.





         Between:-

         SH. DHANI RAM SON OF SH. SANT RAM, RESIDENT OF

         VILLAGE SAI POST OFFICE BALLERA, TEHSIL ARKI,
         DISTT. SOLAN, (HP).

                                            ......PETITIONER/APPLICANT.

         (BY SH. RAMESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)


         AND

    1.   MANOJ KUMAR, ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (HOME)
         GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2 (HP).




    2.   SH. SHAM BHAKT NEGI, DIRECTOR COMMANDANT GENERAL





         HOME GUARDS/CIVIL DEFENCE/FIRE SERVICES, US CLUB,
         SHIMLA-1, HIMACHAL PRADESH.





    3.   SH. HARI SWAROOP SHARMA, THE COMMANDANT, 11TH
         HOME GUARD BATTALION, SOLAN, DISTT. SOLAN,(HP).

    4.   SH. BHARAT KHERA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME)
         GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2(HP).

    5.   SH. S.P. SINGH, DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM-COMMANDANT
         GENERAL, HOME GUARDS AND CIVIL DEFENCE, US CLUB,
         SHIMLA-1, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

    6.   SH. SHIV KUMAR, COMMANDANT, HOME GUARDS 11TH
         BATTALION SOLAN, DISTT. SOLAN (HP).




                                           ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2022 20:05:13 :::CIS
                                     2




                                         ......CONTEMONRS/RESPONDENTS.

         ( BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH




                                                            .
          SH. RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE





         GENERAL. SH. VINOD THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
         GENERAL AND SH. RAJAT CHAUHAN, LAW OFFICER).





               This contempt petition coming on for admission
    after notice this day, the Court passed the following:





                         ORDER

CMP-T No. 291 of 2022.

By medium of this application, the applicant-

petitioner has sought impleadment of the present incumbents

Shri Bharat Khera, Principal Secretary (Home), Government of

Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2 (HP), Sh. S.P. Singh, Director

General-cum-Commandant General, Home Guards and Civil

Defence, US Club, Shimla-1, Himachal Pradesh and Sh. Shiv

Kumar, Commandant, Home Guards, 11th Battalion, Solan,

Distt. Solan, (HP) as party-respondents.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same

is allowed and the proposed contemnors/respondents are

ordered to be impleaded as party respondents and shall now

figure as respondents No. 4 to 6. The application stands

disposed of.

Amended memo of parties accompanying the

application is ordered to be taken on record.

.

COPCT No. 589 of 2020.

Notice be issued to the newly added respondents

No. 4 to 6. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate

General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of

newly added respondents No. 4 to 6.

2. Heard. The petitioner has filed the instant

contempt petition against the respondents on the ground that

the order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal on 16.02.2018 in

O.A. No. 518 of 2018 directing the re-employment of the

petitioner subject to availability of vacancy in 11/2 Company,

3rd Battalion, Home Guards, District Solan, later created 11th

Battalion, Home Guards, District Solan,H.P. has not been

complied with by them in its letter and spirit.

3. The records of the case have been requisitioned

and it would be noticed that the petitioner had earlier filed

CWP No. 5139 of 2010 before this Court, that too, for

reengagement of his services.

4. This Court vide its judgment dated 23.08.2010

disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the

respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with

the similar matters that had been disposed of by the learned

.

Division Bench being CWP No.64 of 2010 titled Nagender

Parkash vs. State of H.P. and another.

5. In compliance to the orders, the petitioner was

re-enrolled in 11th Battalion, Solan, subject to the judicial

verdict, as would be pronounced, in the review petitions

preferred by the respondents/non-applicants, as is evident

from Annexure -E, dated 17.09.2010, annexed with the reply,

the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

"OFFICE ORDER"

Consequent upon the receipt of orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 3408/2010,

3385/2010, 3380/2010, 3382/2010, 3381/2010, 5092/2010,

4624/2010 and CWP No. 5139/2010, the following Home Guards are hereby reenrolled in 11th Battalion, Solan.

These reenrollment orders will, however, be subject to judicial verdict, as may be pronounced, in the review petitions filed in case of CWP No. 64/2010, 3408/2010, 3385/2010, 3380/2010, 3382/2010, 3381/2010.

Sr. No. Name Address:

1. Sh. Balak Ram S/o Sh. Badri Village Dhaina, P.O. Sehrol, Dutt. , Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P.

2. Sh. Balbir Singh, S/O Sh. Ram Village Tukari, P.O. Kunihar, Dass Tehsil Arki, District Solan.

3. Sh. Joginder Singh , S/O Sh. Village Garaich, P.O.

Prem Lal Kunihar, Tehsil Arki,District Solan.

.

4. Sh. Raj Kumar, S/o Sh. Het Village Dochi, P.O. Kunihar,

Ram Tehsil Arki, District Solan.

5. Sh. Dharam Pal S/o Sh. Dhani Village Dhaila, P.O.

           Ram                          Ghershi,      Tehsil    Kasauli,





                                        District Solan.

6. Sh. Jai Pal S/O Sh. Krishan Village Karol, P.O. Naya Gram, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan.

7. Sh. Kaklesh Kumar, S/O Sh. Village Shilla, P.O. Shikroha,

Santu Ram Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur.

8. Sh. Dhani Ram S/o Sh. Sant Village Sai, P.O. Balera, Ram Tehsil Arki, District Solan.

Commandant 11th Battalion, Solan is directed to take action accordingly."

6. It is not in dispute that the review petitions filed by

the respondents/non-applicants were allowed by this Court

vide order dated 03.12.2011, the relevant portion whereof

reads as under:-

"C. Review Nos. 4, 7, 9, 11 and 13 of 2011.

The State has come up in review(s) seeking review of the judgment(s) passed by this Court. The matter pertains to the reengagement of Home-Guards. It appears that the Government had already taken a stand for re-employment of the writ petitioners as can be seen from the order(s) sought to be implemented. But the stand taken in the review petition(s) is that there is no provision for reengagement and those

orders are to be reconsidered. In case any order(s) passed in favour of the writ petitioners are to be

.

reconsidered, it is certainly open to them to do so in

accordance with law, with notice to the writ petitioners. Therefore, these review petitions are

disposed of making it clear that in case the Government wants to reconsider their stand, it will be open to them to do so with notice to the writ

petitioners and the judgments shall not stand in the way of the matter being reconsidered in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that in case such a

step is taken for re-consideration, the submission that it

is in the better interest of the Government to have the trained person should also be considered.

2. With the above observations, the review

petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any."

7. Since, the petitioner had been reenrolled on the basis

of the orders of this Court passed in CWP No. 64/2010, therefore,

the respondents after the decision of the review petitions

cancelled the appointment of the petitioner along with other

similarly situated persons, who had also approached this Court

earlier.

8. It is the specific case of the respondents that the

petitioner had concealed material facts and obtained ex-parte

interim order in his favour on 16.02.2018 by not disclosing the true

and correct facts, more particularly, that his services had been

terminated vide Office Order dated 30.03.2015.

.

9. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that

he has not received any such communication dated 30.03.2015

and he learnt about the same only after he received a letter from

the respondents dated 18.01.2018.

    10.         Be that as it may,            even if, it is assumed that the

    petitioner had received
                    r            letter dated 18.01.2018 and not                    the

communication dated 30.03.2015, even then, it would be noticed

that as regards O.A. No. 518 of 2018, the same was filed much

later on 15.02.2018 and at that time, it was well within the

knowledge of the petitioner that his services have been

dispensed with on the basis of the decision rendered by this Court

in CWP No. 64 of 2010.

11. No doubt, the petitioner has made a mention of the

order dated 18.01.2018, 10.01.2018 and has also annexed a copy

thereof with the Original Application, however, the fact remains

that there was no prayer for reengagement in the Original

Application under Column No. 8 of the prayer nor could the

Tribunal have directed the reengagement of the petitioner that

too vide ex parte order without calling upon a formal reply or

instructions from the respondents.

12. In the given facts and circumstances, the respondents

by not reengaging the petitioner have not deliberately or willfully

.

disobeyed the orders of the Court as they have valid and

justifiable reasons for not implementing the said order.

13. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971,(for short the 'Act') which is relevant for the adjudication

of this case, reads as under:

"(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;"

14. There can be no doubt that where there has been

an unequivocal, deliberate and willful disobedience to the

order of the Court, punishment for contempt of Court is called

for and should be unhesitatingly imposed upon the party, if

found guilty. But, then it should be remembered that the

Court's power to punish the contemnor in summary

proceedings is to be used sparingly and with circumspection.

In a contempt petition as indeed, in every other case the

decision must necessarily rest on the facts of that case.

15. In Jiwani Kumari Parekh vs. Satyabrata

Chakravorty, AIR 1991 SC 326, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

.

held that unless willful or deliberate disobedience of the order

of the Court is committed, the charge of contempt cannot be

brought home. Even bona fide misinterpretation of the Court

judgment/order cannot attract contempt. A party can be

held guilty in case disobedience of the judgment or order is

willful or deliberate.

16. In Niaz Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana

and others (1994) 6 SCC 332, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held that the framers of the Act while defining civil contempt

have said that it must be willful disobedience of any

judgment, decree etc and, therefore, before a contemnor is

punished for non-compliance of a direction of a Court, the

Court must not only be satisfied about the disobedience of

any judgment, decree, direction or writ, but should also be

satisfied that such disobedience was willful and intentional. If

from the circumstances of a particular case, the Court is

satisfied that although there has been a disobedience, but the

disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances

under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply

with the order, the Court will not punish the alleged

contemnor.

.

17. What would be willful disobedience was

considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Paper

Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Godha and others (2003) 11 SCC 1

and it was held that 'willful disobedience' means an act or

omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with

the specific intent to do something the law prohibits or with

the specific intent to fail to do something that law requires to

be done, that is to say with bad purpose either to disobey or

disregard the law. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it

signifies an act done with an evil intent or with a bad motive

or purpose. It was further observed that the acts or omissions

have to be judged having regard to the facts and

circumstances of each case.

18. The legal position has been lucidly laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs. United

India Insurance Company Limited and others (2010) 12 SCC

770, wherein it was observed as under:

"17. This now leads us to the next question and a more relevant one, as to whether a proceeding for

contempt initiated against the appellant can be held to be sustainable merely on speculation, assumption

.

and inference drawn from facts and circumstances of

the instant case. In our considered opinion, the answer clearly has to be in the negative in view of the well-

settled legal position reflected in a catena of decisions of this court that contempt of a civil nature can be held to have been made out only if there has been a

wilful disobedience of the order and even though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful disobedience, a

case for contempt cannot be held to have been

made out. In fact, if an order is capable of more than one interpretation giving rise to variety of consequences, non-compliance of the same cannot

be held to be wilful disobedience of the order so as to make out a case of contempt entailing the serious

consequence including imposition of punishment. However, when the Courts are confronted with a

question as to whether a given situation could be treated to be a case of wilful disobedience, or a case

of a lame excuse, in order to subvert its compliance, howsoever articulate it may be, will obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but while deciding so, it would not be legally correct to be too speculative based on assumption as the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 clearly postulates and emphasizes that the ingredient of wilful disobedience

must be there before anyone can be hauled up for the charge of contempt of a civil nature.

.

23. Besides this, it would also not be correct to overlook or ignore an important statutory ingredient of

contempt of a civil nature given out u/s 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 that the disobedience to the order alleging contempt has to satisfy the test that

it is a wilful disobedience to the order. Bearing this important factor in mind, it is relevant to note that a proceeding for civil contempt would not lie if the order

alleged to have been disobeyed itself provides scope

for reasonable or rational interpretation of an order or circumstance which is the factual position in the instant matter. It would equally not be correct to infer that a

party although acting due to misapprehension of the correct legal position and in good faith without any motive to defeat or defy the order of the Court, should

be viewed as a serious ground so as to give rise to a

contempt proceeding.

24. To reinforce the aforesaid legal position further, it

would be relevant and appropriate to take into consideration the settled legal position as reflected in the judgment and order delivered in the matter of Ahmad Ali v. Supdt., District Jail, AIR 1987 SC 1491 as also in B.K. Kar v. High Court of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 1367 that mere unintentional disobedience is not enough to hold anyone guilty of contempt and although, disobedience might have been established, absence

of wilful disobedience on the part of the contemnor, will not hold him guilty unless the contempt involves a

.

degree of fault or misconduct. Thus, accidental or

unintentional disobedience is not sufficient to justify one for holding guilty of contempt. It is further relevant to

bear in mind the settled law on the law of contempt that casual or accidental or unintentional acts of disobedience under the circumstances which negate

any suggestion of contumacy, would amount to a contempt in theory only and does not render the contemnor liable to punishment and this was the view

expressed also in cases reported in AIR 1954 Patna 513,

State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari and AIR 1957 Patna 528, N. Bakshi Vs. O.K. Ghosh."

19. Thus, what can be taken to be settled on the basis

of the aforesaid exposition of law is that it is duty of the Court

to punish a person who tries to obstruct the course of justice or

brings to disrepute the institution of Judiciary. However, this

power has to be exercised not casually or lightly, but with

great care and circumspection. Contempt proceedings serve

a dual purpose of vindication of the public interest by

punishment of the contumacious conduct and coercion to

compel the contemnor to do what the law requires of him.

20. A question whether there is contempt of Court or

not is a serious one. The Court is both the accuser as well as

the judge of the accusation. It behoves the Court to act with

as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for

.

errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate

practices in Courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case

of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises

that the contemnor must be punished. Punishment under the

law of Contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and

in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority.

21. While dealing with the contempt petitions, the

Courts are not required to travel beyond the four corners of

order, which is alleged to have been disobeyed or

disregarded deliberately and willfully. In this connection, it

shall be apposite to make a fruitful recapitulation of a

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan vs.

Tarun Bajaj and others 2014 AIR SCW 1218, wherein it was held

as under:-

"9. Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto the law courts power to punish an offender for his willful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizens that his

rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect

.

of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the

contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates

as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise

jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all

reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to

impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide: V.G. Nigam & Ors. v. Kedar Nath

Gupta & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 2153; Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 3468; Anil Ratan

Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1405; Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Anr., AIR

2004 SC 942; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705; and National Fertilizers

Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 1299).

10. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is wilful. The word wilful introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of ones state of mind. Wilful means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and

deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental,

.

bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability.

Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a bad

purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly,

thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows

what he is doing and intends to do the same.

Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of

some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the

order, the contemnor cannot be punished. Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless

contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct. (Vide: S. Sundaram Pillai, etc. v. V.R.

Pattabiraman; AIR 1985 SC 582; Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 2185; Niaz Mohammad & Ors. etc.etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 308; Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, AIR 2000 SC 1880; M/s. Ashok Paper Kamgar Union & Ors. v. Dharam Godha & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 105; State of Orissa & Ors. v. Md.

Illiyas, AIR 2006 SC 258; and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, (2013) 9 SCC 753).

.

11. In Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 2071, this Court dealt with a case wherein

direction was issued to the Union of India to pay the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to the applicant therein and release him from defence service. The said amount

was paid to the applicant after deducting the income tax payable on the said amount. While dealing with the contempt application, this Court

held that withholding the amount cannot be held to

be either malafide or was there any scope to impute that the respondents intended to violate the direction of this Court.

12. In Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1293, the Court while

dealing with the issue whether a doubt persisted as

to the applicability of the order of this Court to complainants held that it would not give rise to a contempt petition. The court was dealing with a case

wherein the statutory authorities had come to the conclusion that the order of this court was not applicable to the said complainants while dealing with the case under the provision of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

13. It is well settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not

contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport of the order

.

is to be taken into consideration and the same must

be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring

home the charge within the meaning of the Act. (See: Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retd.), AIR 2008 (Supp-2) SC 1837; and Three Cheers Entertainment

Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 735): (2008 AIR SCW 7951)."

Similar view has been taken by this Bench in

Contempt Petition No. 415 of 2014, Rulda Ram Vs. Rakesh

Kanwar, decided on 28th February, 2015.

22. The discussion on the subject would be incomplete

unless and until the reference is made to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avishek Raja and others vs. Sanjay

Gupta (2017) 8 SCC 435, wherein the law on the subject was

culled out as under:-

"20. The contours of power of the Court so far as commission of civil contempt is concerned have been elaborated upon in a number of pronouncements of this Court. Illustratively, reference may be made to the following observations in Kapildeo Prasad Sah versus State of Bihar (1999) 7 SCC 569 (SCC pp.573-74, paras 9-11)

9. For holding the respondents to have committed contempt, civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that

there has been wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the court. Power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation of the court's

.

order. Since notice of contempt and punishment for

contempt is of far reaching consequence [and] these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court's order has been made out. Whether disobedience is wilful in a particular case

depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. Judicial orders are to be properly understood and complied with. Even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience particularly when the attention of the person is drawn to the court's orders and its implications....

10..... Jurisdiction to punish for contempt exists to provide ultimate sanction against the person who refuses to comply with the order of the court or disregards the order continuously. .....

r 11.No person can defy court's order. Wilful would exclude

casual, accidental bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order. A petitioner who complains breach of court's order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the

court's order."

21. Similar is the view expressed by this Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1, Anil

Kumar Shahi v. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav (2008) 14 SCC 115, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5 SCC

352, Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC 613, Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd.

v. Gautam Goswami (2008) 5 SCC 339 and Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati (2001) 7 SCC 530. In view of the consistency in the opinions rendered therein, it will not be necessary to burden this order by any detailed reference to what has been held in the above cases except to reiterate that the standard of proof required to hold a person guilty of contempt would not be the same as in a criminal proceedings and the breach alleged shall have to be

established beyond all reasonable doubt(Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati).

.

22. More recent in point of time is the view expressed by this

court in Noor Saba v. Anoop Mishra (2013) 10 SCC 248 wherein the scope of the contempt power in case of a

breach of a court's order has been dealt with in para 14 of the Report in the following manner (SCC pp. 252-53)

"14.To hold the respondents or anyone of them liable for

contempt this Court has to arrive at a conclusion that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court. The exercise of contempt jurisdiction is summary in nature and an adjudication of the liability of the alleged contemnor for wilful disobedience of the Court is normally r made on admitted and undisputed facts. In the present

case not only has there been a shift in the stand of the petitioner with regard to the basic facts on which commission of contempt has been alleged even the said new/altered facts do not permit an adjudication in consonance with the established principles of exercise of

contempt jurisdiction so as to enable the Court to come to a conclusion that any of the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court....."

23. Similarly, in Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran (2014) 3 SCC 373 the issue has been dealt with in a manner

which may be of relevance to the present case. Para 19 of the Report is as follows:(SCC p-381)

19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not

been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self evident

.

ought to be taken into account for the purpose of

consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor the plea of equities can be considered. Courts must also ensure that while considering

a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions

vested in the Court, as noticed above."

23. In these circumstances, no case for contempt is made

out. Consequently, the contempt petition is dismissed. The notices

issued to the respondents are ordered to be discharged.

24. However, it is made clear that any observation made

in this order shall not affect the case of either of the parties in

CWPOA No. 3880 of 2020.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

5th May, 2022.

(krt)