I.P.Singh, J. - (1.) NOTICE of contempt of court was issued to Opposite Party No. 3 by this Court on 2 -8 -1984 for non -compliance of the order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 12997 of 1983, whereby Additional District Magistrate. Varanasi was directed to restore to the Petitioner his fire arm licence as well as the fire arm within a period of two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order passed by this Court. The said certified copy was produced before the Additional District Magistrate on 25 -5 -84 and in pursuance thereof he passed the order dated 29 -5 -1984 directing the opposite party No. 3, the Station Officer, Police Station Syed Raza, Varanasi, to hand over the licence and the fire arm to the Petitioner, but it was never complied with and thereby he violated the order of this Court.
(2.) IN the Counter affidavit the only plea taken is that the applicant did not meet him at the Police Station to enable him to restore the licence and the fire arm to the Petitioner. This assertion is, however, challenged in the rejoinder affidavit and it is reiterated that the Petitioner had met the Opposite Party No. 3 and he had deliberately not returned the gun and the licence to him. Learned Counsel for the contemner argued that in Writ Petition No. 12997 of 1983 the contemner was not a party and as such he could not be held guilty of contempt, if any. Annexure No. 1 to the Contempt Application shows that the only opposite parties to the said writ petition were (1) Commissioner Vararasi Division, Varanasl, (2) Additional District Magistrate (Executive), Varanasi, and (2) State of U.P. through Collector, Varanasi. Thus it is evident that the contemner Onkar Natb Tewari, Station Officer, P.S. Syed Raza, Varanasi was not an opposite party on record.
(3.) IN case or Narain Singh, Petitioner v. S. Hardayal Singh Harika, Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Patiala, Respondent : AIR 1958 P&H 180 it was held as under: (b) Contempt of Courts Act (1952), Section 3 - -Corporation - -Liability of its officers and servants - -(Constitution of India, Article 215). Corporations are subject to punishment for contempt and officers, agents, and others, who act for a corporation, and who knowingly violate or disobey an injunction against the corporation, are punishable for contempt even though the injunction is issued only against the corporation. The officers of a municipal corporation cannot be deemed to have a licence to knowingly violate an injunctive order against a municipality. An injunction against a municipal corporation is equally binding on all individuals acting for the corporation, to whose knowledge the injunction comes, although they may not be parties to the suit.;