AJAY KUMAR Vs. D.S. SINGH WORKS MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicant, I have heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. and have perused the contempt application, counter-affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit, rejoinder - affidavit and also the supplementary counter-affidavit filed today.

(2.) This contempt application was filed on the allegation that the requirement had not complied with the order dated 27.11.90 passed by this court on the writ petition of Ajay Kumar, which required the salary to be paid to the petitioner within a month, or the respondent was asked to show-cause within the same period by filing a counter - affidavit in the writ petition. The position, which is now not disputed, in any case, is that the registered letter containing the order dated 27.11.90 was delivered by the postal authorities in the office of respondent on 20.12.90. However, the respondent had taken the stand that the said letter had been received by him on 31.12.90. The respondent was asked to explain this anomaly by filling a supplementary-counter-affidavit which has been explained by the Supplementary-counter-affidavit filed in this court today. The explanation offered is that the persons concerned in his office had not brought the order to his not ice upto 31.12.90 with the result that the respondent had presumed that he could either pay the salary or to show-cause in the writ petition within a month from 31.12.90. Be that as it may, the fact which cannot he overlooked is that the respondent did show cause in pursuance of the order dated 27.11.90. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent was guilty of any wilful disobedience to the order passed by this Court. It may be emphasised that the contempt of Courts act does not make the contemner liable for a mere disobedience of the order but the liability for contempt of Court arises if the disobedience is found to he wilful and where it could be also found by the court examining the contempt matter that the contemner not only disobeyed the orders but the said disobedience was a deliberate action on the part of the contemner. In this connection reference may also be made to Sec. 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act which reads as follows:

(3.) A perusal of the above mentioned Sec. would also indicate that the Legislature intended to punish only such persons for the contempt of court where the court could arrive at a conclusion that tho conduct of the contemner substantially interfered or tended substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.