- (1.) IN the present case, complaint is being alleged for non-compliance of order dated 05. 08. 2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 39118 of 2008, Shyamjere and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, wherein this Court on 14. 11. 2008 passed following order: "issue notice. Notices on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 have been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Deb Dayal has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no. 4 to 10. Issue notice to respondents No. 11 to 15, through registered post returnable at an early date. List this case after expiry of six weeks. In the meantime, pleadings may be exchanged. As an interim measure, without prejudice to the right and contention of the parties, no third party's right shall be created by either party till the next date of listing. "
(2.) IT has been sought to be contended on behalf of the applicant that by passing order dated 15. 09. 2008, the order passed by this Court has been deliberately and willfully violated. The interim order passed by this Court is clear and categorical, which proceeds to mention that no third party's right shall be created by either party till the next date of listing. As per said order none of the parties are entitled to create third party right. In the present case no third party right has been created. Merely consequential order has been passed. thus, it cannot be said that there is any willful or deliberate defiance of the order passed by this Court. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Three Cheers Entertainment (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. CESC Ltd. AIR SCW 2008 7951, has taken the view that purpose and object of contempt proceeding is only to see that order of court is complied with and not unnecessarily proceed against persons, as if they are ordinary petty criminals and for initiation of contempt proceeding, there has to be willful disobedience or contumacious conduct on the part of alleged contemnor. Relevant extract is being quoted below: "contempt of Court is a matter which deserves to be dealt with all seriousness. In Mriityunjoy Das and Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahman and Ors. (Ors) (2001) 3 SCC739, this Court held: "13. Before, however, proceeding with the matter any further, be it noted that exercise of powers under the Contempt of Courts Act shall have to be rather cautious and use of it rather sparingly after addressing itself to be true effect of the contemptuous conduct. The Court must otherwise come to a conclusion that the conduct complained of tantamounts to obstruction of justice which if allowed would even permeate in our society (vide Murray and Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia ). This is a special jurisdiction conferred on to the law Courts to punish an offender for his contemptuous conduct or obstruction the majesty of law. "
(3.) IN Chhotu Ram v. Urbashi Gulati and Anr. (2001) 7 SCC 530, this Court held that a contempt of Court proceeding being quasi criminal in nature, the burden to prove would be upon the person who made such an allegation. A person cannot be sentenced on mere probability. Wilful disobedience and contumacious conduct is the basis on which a contemnor can be punished. Such a finding cannot be arrived at on ipsi dixit of the Court. It must be arrived at on the materials brought on record by the parties. Yet again in Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors. (2002) (4) SCC 21, it was opined: "15. It may also be noticed at this juncture that mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a "civil contempt" within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Act of 1971 - the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act and lastly in the event two interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation - the act o acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise. ";