UTPAL CHOWDHURY Vs. M C TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the contemnor submits that being aggrieved by my order dated March 5th, 2007 the respondents in the writ petition have already preferred an appeal, and that the connected stay application is pending decision.

(2.) On the strength of Dr. H. Phunindre Singh & Ors. v. K.K. Sethi & Anr., 1998 8 SCC 640 and Sri K. Tarafdar v. Sri S.K. Chaudhury, Collector of Customs,1995 1 CalHN 269, counsel for the petitioner submits that simply because the respondents in the writ petition have preferred an appeal, it cannot be said that the contemnor, who has not carried out the directions, has not committed any contempt of this court.

(3.) I do not find any reason to say that the contemnor has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order dated March 5, 2007. The respondents in the writ petition were entitled to prefer an appeal, and that they have done. In my view, once in exercise of their legal right they have preferred an appeal, by no reasoning it can be said that by not carrying out the directions they have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order. They are awaiting order in the appeal; that should not be seen as an act of disobedience of the order appealed against.