Man Singh vs Maan Singh S/o Lekh Ram, Assistant Engineer No.1, HPPWD Division, Killar

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this contempt petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for action against the respondent for willful disobedience of order dated 30.06.2023, passed by this Court in Arbitration Case No. 539 of 2023, titled Maan Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court on 30.06.2023, which reads as under:-

“Arb. Case No.539 of 2023

Notice. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Additional Advocate General, waives service and accepts notice on behalf of respondents and seeks time to file reply. Be filed, as prayed, within three weeks. Till next date, status quo, qua award of work, as exists on date, shall be maintained by the respondent.

List on 10.07.2023.

OMP No. 282 of 2023

Allowed. The applicant is exempted from filing translation of Annexures, annexed with the petition, at this stage, subject to filing of the same within seven days, as and when directed to do so.

Application stands disposed of.”

He submitted that despite the status quo order qua the award of work, passed by the Court on 30.06.2023, respondent on 01.07.2023 awarded the work to Mahender Rana, which amounts to willful disobedience of the directions passed by the Court.

Learned Advocate General by referring to the reply has submitted that though it is a matter of record that this Court was pleased to pass status quo order on 30.06.2023 but then there is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that the order indeed was conveyed to the Officer concerned, who allegedly has committed the contempt of the Court. He further submitted that though the presence of learned Additional Advocate General is recorded but as a matter of record the order was not conveyed to the Officer before 01.07.2023. Accordingly, he submitted that may be disobedience of the Court order is there but willful disobedience is not there.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Advocate General.

The petitioner alleges willful disobedience of the direction of status quo passed by the Court on 30.06.2023. Violation thereof as alleged, is in terms of Annexure A-3, vide which work was allotted by the respondent-contemnor to a Government Contractor on 01.07.2023, despite the status quo order passed by the Court.

This Court is of the considered view that because contempt proceedings are punitive in nature, therefore, until and unless it stand demonstrated before the Court that the order has not only been disobeyed but the disobedience is willful, the Court should refrain from taking action against a person in exercise of power of contempt.

In this case, though it is clearly borne out from the document that despite the status quo order passed by the Court on 30.06.2023, the work was allotted by the respondent to a Government Contractor on 01.07.2023, but the petitioner has not been able to establish that this was done by the respondent despite the factum of his having knowledge of the order passed by the Court on 30.06.2023. That being the case, this Court cannot on the basis of conjectures come to the conclusion that the disobedience of the Court order is willful.

Therefore, in the facts of the case as this Court concurs with the submission of learned Advocate General that the petitioner has not been able to establish that there is a willful disobedience of the Court order, the petition is dismissed. Notice discharged. It goes without saying that the observations made in this petition are limited to the adjudication of this petition and they shall not be having any bearing on the pending Arbitration cases. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.