Ashok Gupta vs R.K. Rana

M.M.S. Bedi, J.—The petitioner claims that order dated 17.05.2013 requiring respondent No. 1 to hear the parties and pass fresh orders within a period of 60 days after the receipt of certified copy of the order, has not been complied with as the consideration was only after expiry of 60 days. Main grievance of the petitioner is that the District Registrar, Firms and Societies, Jhajjar had passed an order on 22.07.2013 Annexure P-7 purported to be in compliance of the orders dated 17.05.2013 directing him to hear the parties and pass fresh order within a period of 60 days after the receipt of certified copy of the order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the copy of the order was received in the office of District Registrar, Jhajjar on 29.05.2013 as such the 60 days period expired on 27.07.2013. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the certified copies of the statements of Jai Bhagwan Goyal, Satyanarayan, Kailash Gupta, Mohan Lal Bansal, Ishwar Singh, Purshottam Dass Aggarwal and Harmilap Goyal had got their statements recorded on 28.07.2013 whereas the order is shown to have been passed on 22.07.2013.

Grievance of the petitioner is that the said act of the respondent constitutes contempt of Court as respondent has tried to show compliance by ante-dating the order Annexure P-7.

I have gone through the order Annexure P-7 passed by respondent. In the order he has made a specific reference to the statements of the parties having been recorded on 08.07.2013.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of only three persons were recorded on 08.07.2013 but remaining statements were recorded on 28.07.2013 but in the order dated 22.07.2013 it has been wrongly mentioned that statements of eleven persons were recorded on 08.07.2013.

I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The short question which is required to be determined by this Court is whether there has been any wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court directing the respondents to consider the entire claim within a period of 60 days. No doubt there has been a fractional delay of two days. The objective of civil contempt is to seek the implementation of an order passed by the Court. The compliance seems to have already been made. In case the petitioner claims that the order dated 22.07.2013 suffers from any illegality or infirmity it will always be open to the petitioner to avail the other legal remedy available to him.

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently insisted that the statements shown to have been recorded on 28.07.2013 after the passing of the order on 22.07.2013 would constitute contempt of Court. The prejudice if any having been caused to the petitioner on account of the said irregularity can be rectified but I do not find that it is a fit case to launch contempt proceedings for the delay of two days in compliance of the order of this Court by pre-dating the order dated 28.07.2013. Besides this, this Court is of the opinion that the rights of the petitioner had been safeguarded by an order dated 31.05.2013 while confirming the Single Bench order dated 17.05.2013, by observing that the respondent shall not give effect to the final decision for a period of two weeks to enable the aggrieved party to seek redressal of its grievances before an appropriate forum. In view of no serious prejudice having been caused to the petitioner, no ground is made out for punishing the respondent for contempt of Court in any manner. The petition is dismissed. The dismissal of this petition, however, will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner to challenge the validity of order Annexure P-7. It is not out of place to observe here that the proceedings of contempt of Court are meant to uphold the dignity of the Court and it cannot be permitted to be used as a device to settle other scores between the parties and the authorities.