Amitava Lala J. - (1.) This is an application for contempt. By making this contempt application the petitioners contended that the alleged contemnors have violated the order dated January 21, 2003, passed by this court. In the original order this court was pleased to direct how the additional compensation be calculated and how the interest will be calculated. However, the operative part of the order is important for the purpose of consideration : The defects will be cured and a fresh order will be issued within one month from the date of communication of this order and upon making all calculations appropriate amount will be paid in favour of the petitioners within a period of one month thereafter."
(2.) According to the petitioners, they have supplied a copy of the order to the appropriate authorities with the letter dated January 28, 2003. Initially, a rule was issued keeping the question of maintainability of the contempt application open. The petitioners also made an interlocutory application within the contempt application saying that the petitioner paid the amount as per the order of the court upon deducting income-tax as per Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The prayer in the interlocutory application under the contempt application is to give a direction upon the alleged contemnors to release the deducted amount of Rs. 3,68,229 on account of income-tax in favour of the petitioners. There is no dispute with regard to the balance sum as has already been paid by the alleged contemnors pursuant to the order of the court which appears to be accepted by the petitioners as per the voucher dated June 16, 2003. It is significant to note that such amount was accepted beyond the period of two months from the date of communication of this order. The petitioners have taken a plea that although such indication is there in the voucher before acceptance of the sum on June 13, 2003, the petitioners wrote a letter to the Land Acquisition Collector informing that receipt of such sum with the deduction is "without prejudice". However, upon going through such letter I find that the letter was written demanding the deducted amount and such claim is without prejudice to the pending contempt application.
(3.) It is to be remembered that hereunder I am proceeding with a contempt application. The remaining money claim is precisely the scope and ambit of the interlocutory application. Therefore, the question remains whether such order can be passed in a contempt application or not. Contempt of court is a quasi-criminal proceeding which is to be proceeded on the basis of wilful disobedience of the order of the court. Moreover, when factually the order has been complied' with and the claim amount has been paid and received by the petitioners even within the extended period leaving aside deduction of income-tax, how the contempt lies against the respondents is unknown to this court. Where is the wilful disobedience ? Impossibility to act cannot be equated with the non-compliance of the order more particularly when the court directed the respondents to make all calculations and pay the appropriate amount. Such dispute must be related to quantum, subject to adjustment of statutory liabilities, if any. Such deduction on account of income-tax may be good, bad or indifferent but cannot be said to be wilful disobedience or violation of the order of the court.;