Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shaikh Sikandar Shaikh Gulab, filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondents, the State of Maharashtra and the District Collector, Beed, had flouted the directions of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated 18th February, 2009, in Writ Petition No. 6894 of 2008. The Division Bench had directed the District Collector to decide the petitioner's application dated 17th May, 2008, which was pending before him. The petitioner claimed that the respondents did not comply with this order within the stipulated time, thereby committing contempt of court. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the application was pending due to administrative reasons and that it was ultimately decided on 30th December, 2009. They argued that there was no wilful disobedience of the court's order. The court, after hearing both sides, examined the facts and found that the respondents had not acted with contumacious intent. The delay in deciding the application was attributed to administrative exigencies, and the application was eventually decided. The court held that contempt proceedings require proof of wilful and deliberate disobedience, which was not established in this case. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The court also noted that the petitioner was at liberty to challenge the decision on the application if he was aggrieved by it.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to comply with the Division Bench's direction to decide his application within a specified period. The court held that for contempt, wilful and deliberate disobedience must be established. The respondents explained that the delay was due to administrative reasons and that the application was subsequently decided. The court found no contumacious intent and dismissed the contempt petition. (Paras 1-5) B) Administrative Delay - Compliance with Court Orders - The court observed that the respondents had not intentionally flouted the order but had taken steps to comply, albeit belatedly. The application was decided on 30th December, 2009, after the contempt petition was filed. The court held that in the absence of wilful disobedience, contempt proceedings are not warranted. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by failing to decide the petitioner's application within the time directed by the Division Bench order dated 18th February, 2009.
Final Decision
Contempt Petition No.139 of 2009 is dismissed. Rule discharged. Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the decision on the application if aggrieved.
Law Points
- Contempt of court requires wilful disobedience
- mere non-compliance without contumacious intent is not contempt
- order to decide application within specified time must be strictly complied with
- burden of proof on petitioner to show wilful disobedience
