REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8839 OF 2010  (Arising out of  Special Leave Petition (C)  1587 of 2007)  

Dinesh Kumar Gupta    . ..Appellant  

Versus  

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  by  special  leave  has  been filed  against  an  interim  

order dated 08.12.2006 passed by the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of  

Rajasthan  in  S.B.  Civil  Writ  Petition  No.  1072  of  2001  whereby  the  

learned single Judge initiated suo moto contempt proceeding against the  

appellant and directed issuance of notice to him after which a separate  

Contempt  Petition  was  ordered  to  be  registered  against  him.  This  

initiation  apparently  was  based  on  the  assumption  and  impression  

gathered by the learned single Judge to the effect that the appellant had  

obstructed the course of administration of  justice by ensuring that the

interim order of stay dated 22.03.2001 passed by the learned single  

Judge  against  implementation  of  the  award  of  compensation  as  also  

direction to the Registrar General (Vigilance) to initiate inquiry against the  

then  Judge  of  the  Motor  Accident  Claims  Tribunal,  Jaipur,  be  not  

implemented.   The  learned  Judge  further  inferred  that  this  was  an  

attempt on the part of the appellant herein to shield the Judge of the  

MACT from facing the vigilance inquiry and hence contempt proceeding  

has been initiated against the appellant.

3. As the appellant was not a party in the writ  petition in the High  

Court in which contempt proceeding has been initiated, he sought leave  

of this Court  to file Special  Leave Petition which was granted and an  

order of stay against initiation of contempt proceeding was also passed  

by this Court on 19.01.2007.

4. The  matter  thereafter  was  heard  finally  at  the  admission  stage  

itself  with  consent  of  the  counsel  for  the  parties.   At  the  outset,  the  

appellant assailed the impugned order on the plea that he had joined as  

Deputy  Registrar  (Judicial)  in  the  Jaipur  Bench  of  the  High  Court  of  

Rajasthan only on 05.01.2005 and the order which is alleged to have  

been  not  implemented  at  the  instance  of  the  appellant,  is  dated  

22.03.2001  from  which  it  is  clearly  established  that  the  initiation  of  

contempt  proceeding  alleging  non-implementation  of  the  order  dated  

22.03.2001  on  the  face  of  it,  was  not  justified  at  all  since  the  

2

communication by him to the Registrar (Vigilance) for ascertaining the  

number of the case as also the date of the order sheet - a copy of which  

was to be sent to the Registrar (Vigilance), was the normal requirement  

without which the order sheet could not have been sent and hence the  

same would not amount to contempt of Court.  

5. The  substantial  question  of  law  therefore  which  emerges  for  

determination in this appeal is whether the learned single Judge of the  

High  Court  was  justified  in  initiating  suo  moto  contempt  proceeding  

against  the  appellant  judicial  officer  in  absence  of  even  prima  facie  

material to the effect that there was at all a case of disobedience to the  

order  of  the  High Court  -  much less  wilful  disobedience and whether  

issuance  of  notice  to  initiate  contempt  proceeding  would  be  justified  

merely  on  assumption,  speculation  and  inference  drawn  from  facts  

without existence of a clear case of wilful disobedience to the order of the  

High Court so as to treat it as a case of contempt of Court of  civil nature.

6. The details of facts and circumstances of the matter in so far as it  

is essential for adjudicating the substantial question of law  formulated  

hereinbefore are stated herein as follows:  

(i) A writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1072 of 2001 was  

filed  by  an  Insurance  Company,  namely,  United  India  Insurance  

Company Limited challenging the award passed by the MACT, Jaipur in  

3

favour  of  the  claimant  Smt.  Kaushalya  Devi  and  others.  The  writ  

petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge on 22.3.2001  

who  was  pleased to  admit  the writ  petition  and issued notice to  the  

original  claimants  and other  respondents  therein.   Simultaneously,  an  

order  of  stay  was  also  passed  in  favour  of  the  Petitioner-Insurance  

Company, directing that there shall be stay of recovery against the award  

dated  15.01.2001  by  which  compensation  was  awarded  to  the  

respondents/claimants  therein.   The learned single  Judge was  further  

pleased to direct that a copy of the said order be sent to the Registrar  

(Vigilance)  of  the High  Court  who  shall  look into  the matter  from the  

administrative side implying enquiry against the learned Judge, MACT  

who had passed the award in favour of the claimants/respondents.  It  

would be appropriate to highlight at this stage that the Appellant,  Shri  

Dinesh Gupta was not functioning as Deputy Registrar (Judicial) in the  

High Court on the said date in the year 2001 as he was posted as Deputy  

Registrar (Judicial) at Jaipur Bench in the High Court several years later  

on 05.01.2005.

(ii) However, during the intervening period in order to comply the order  

of  the High Court  dated 22.03.2001,  the Registrar General  (Vigilance)  

vide letter dated 20.04.2001, requested for a copy of the Memo of the  

writ  petition   and  a  copy  of  the  Award  of  the  MACT,  Jaipur  dated  

15.01.2001 passed in Claim Petition No 1782 of 1999.  In response to  

the same, a certified copy of the writ petition was sent by the then Deputy  

4

Registrar (Judicial) but in view of Rule 883 of The Rules of the High  

Court  of  Judicature  for  Rajasthan  1952,  a  request  was  made  to  the  

Registrar  General  (Vigilance)  to  obtain  a  copy of  the Award from the  

MACT, Jaipur directly.  Thereafter, the Registrar General (Vigilance) did  

obtain a certified copy of the MACT judgment/Award from the office of  

the  MACT,  Jaipur  directly  on  25.7.2001  and  then  vide  letter  dated  

11.01.2002,  directed the Deputy Registrar (Judicial)  to inform whether  

the Writ Petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1072 of 2001 entitled  

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. MACT, Jaipur and others had  

been disposed of or not and in case it was disposed of, a copy of the  

order  of  the  Court  was  directed  to  be  sent  to  him.   This  letter  was  

responded by the then Deputy Registrar (Judicial) who informed that the  

matter is pending consideration before the High Court and the next date  

of hearing in the matter was fixed for 05.04.2002. It was further informed  

vide letter dated 16.03.2002 that as and when the matter is disposed of,  

the  copy  of  the  judgment  would  be  sent  to  him.   The  Writ  Petition  

however remained pending without further progress even upto the year  

2005.  Subsequently,  on 31.05.2003, the then Presiding Officer of the  

MACT,  Shri  S.K.  Bansal,  R.H.J.S.  who  had  passed  the  award  of  

compensation in favour of the respondent-claimant Smt. Kaushalya Devi,  

retired from service and matter remained sub-judice as already indicated  

hereinbefore.   

5

7. The Appellant Shri Dinesh Gupta thereafter joined the post of  

Deputy Registrar (Judicial) in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,  

Jaipur  Bench,  Jaipur  on  05.01.2005.   On  09.05.2005  the  Registrar  

General (Vigilance) vide communication dated 09.05.2005 directed the  

Deputy Registrar (Judicial) that the copy of the required judgment of the  

High Court passed in the writ petition be sent to the office of the Registrar  

General  (Vigilance)  within  20  days.  This  letter,  however,  neither  

mentioned the case number nor the date of the order of the Court which  

was  to  be  sent  to  the  Registrar  General  (Vigilance)  which  would  be  

evident  from the  translated  version  of  the  said  letter  which  reads  as  

under:  

“Ref:-  Letter  of  this  Office  No.  848  dt.  28.6.04  &  reminder  No.  1223  dt.  4.9.04  &  No.1464  dt.  8.11.04  &  your  Letter  No.147  dt.  01.07.04.  

Subject:-   For  sending  copy  of  Required  Judgment. Sir

On  the  above  subject  by  drawing  your  attention towards the referred letter, it is ordered  that you please take pain to forward the copy of  required  Judgment  to  this  office  within  twenty  days from receipt of this letter compulsorily.

Yours truly, SD/-

REG. GEN (VIGILANCE)”     

The letter thus merely stated that the Deputy Registrar should take  

pains to forward the copy of required judgment and the same be sent to  

6

the office of the Registrar General (Vigilance) positively within 20 days  

of receipt of the said letter.  

(i) In response to the aforesaid letter dated 09.05.2005, the appellant  

traced out the number of the concerned writ petition  and informed the  

Registrar General (Vigilance) vide his response letter dated 18.05.2005  

that  the  matter  was  pending  consideration  and  as  and  when  it  is  

disposed  of,  the  copy  of  the  judgment  would  be  sent.   Six  months  

thereafter,  the  Registrar  General  (Vigilance)  again  wrote  a  letter  on  

13.12.2005 that the desired judgment be sent positively within 20 days of  

the receipt of the letter but he again failed to indicate the number of the  

case  in  which  the  judgment  was  required  by  him.    However,  the  

appellant  this  time responded to the same by writing to the Registrar  

(Vigilance)  vide  letter  dated  22.12.2005,  that  the  writ  petition  entitled  

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur and  

Ors. had been admitted in which notice had been issued and recovery of  

the amount passed by the Award of the MACT had been stayed by the  

High Court vide order dated 22.03.2001 but the case was still pending in  

the category of incomplete service matters because the notice upon the  

respondent Nos. 2 to 8 was not served and the next date fixed by the  

Hon’ble Court was 20.02.2006.   

(ii) In the meantime, the claimant Smt. Kaushalya Devi had also filed  

an application for vacating the order of stay passed by the High Court in  

7

the concerned writ  petition  i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1072 of  

2001 which  came up for  hearing  before the  learned single  Judge on  

16.10.2006. The learned single Judge on this date ordered that as the  

Presiding  Officer  Shri  S.K.  Bansal  had  retired  and  was  no  more  in  

service, the order of the Court dated 22.03.2001 directing to conduct the  

enquiry by the Registrar General (Vigilance) against the then Judge of  

the MACT, Jaipur be treated as closed and no further action need be  

taken. It was also ordered that this be brought to the notice of the Deputy  

Registrar (Judicial).  

8. The matter/the writ petition thereafter came up before the Court on  

08.12.2006 for considering the application of the claimant for vacating the  

order of stay passed by the learned single Judge on 22.03.2001. The  

learned  single  Judge  on  this  occasion  i.e.  on  08.12.2006  suddenly  

inferred that although an order had been passed on 22.03.2001 staying  

implementation of the award passed in favour of the claimant, yet the  

copy of the order and stay had not been sent for compliance.  Hence, it  

was  inferred  by  the  learned  single  Judge  that  it  appeared  to  be  an  

attempt on the part of the Officer concerned to ensure that the Registrar  

(Vigilance) should not proceed with the enquiry against the MACT Judge  

which had been directed by the Court on the judicial side vide its interim  

order of stay and direction dated 22.03.2001, and this not only amounted  

to  contempt  of  the  order  of  the  Court  dated  22.03.2001,  but  was  an  

attempt to shield the then MACT Judge Shri S.K. Bansal who had passed  

8

the award and later retired from service. The learned single Judge,  

therefore, observed that this was an attempt on the part of the officer  

concerned  (Deputy  Registrar  (Judicial)/the  appellant  herein)  who  had  

written the letter dated 22.12.2005 to the Registrar (Vigilance) seeking  

case number and date of the order which was to be sent to him due to  

which it was observed by the learned single Judge that it had to be taken  

note of seriously as it was an attempt to overreach the directions of the  

Court  and  prevent  its  compliance  creating  obstructions  in  the  

administration of justice.  The learned single Judge therefore ordered to  

issue notice to the then Deputy Registrar (Judicial)  who had sent  the  

letter dated 22.12.2005 enquiring about the case number and the date of  

the order after tracing out the name and his present designation as to  

why contempt proceeding should not be initiated against him and he be  

not punished for contempt of court. The learned Judge further ordered  

that a separate Contempt Petition be registered and notice be issued to  

the contemnor making it  returnable within six weeks.  The writ  petition  

was ordered to be listed a week thereafter.  

9. Since,  the  appellant  Shri  Dinesh Kumar  Gupta  was  the  Deputy  

Registrar  (Judicial)  on  the  relevant  date  i.e.  22.12.2005,  a  contempt  

notice was served on him which took him by surprise as according to  

him, he had neither acted in any manner which could lead to obstruction  

to the cause of justice nor had role in any manner whatsoever to ensure  

that the interim order of stay dated 22.03.2001 staying execution of the  

9

award  be  not  implemented.   Since  the  order  initiating  contempt  

proceeding  against  the  appellant  was  bound  to  affect  him,  he  

approached this court seeking permission to challenge the order passed  

by the learned single Judge initiating contempt proceeding against him  

by submitting that no useful purpose would be served by filing a reply to  

the  show cause  notice  before  the  High  Court  as  the  relevant  record  

although  was  before  the  learned  single  Judge,  yet  a  proceeding  for  

contempt was initiated against him.  

10. On a scrutiny of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the learned  

single Judge has initiated contempt proceedings against  the appellant  

essentially  on impression and assumption that  he was instrumental  in  

ensuring  that  the  order  of  stay  passed  in  favour  of  the  Insurance  

Company on 22.3.2001 passed in S.B. Civil  Writ Petition No. 1072 of  

2001 was not implemented and further the letter dated 22.12.2005 by  

which the appellant herein as the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) had sought  

the case number of the writ petition for which the order sheet was to be  

sent,  was  treated  as  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Deputy  Registrar  

(Judicial) causing obstruction in the way of administration of justice.  It  

was  further  inferred  that  he  had  done so  in  order  to  shield  the  then  

Judge, MACT Shri S.K. Bansal from facing the vigilance enquiry.

11. The grounds relied upon by the appellant for assailing the initiation  

of contempt proceedings against him, is first of all based on the technical  

10

plea that Section 18 of the Contempt of  Courts Act,  1971 has not  

been taken note of by the learned single Judge as in Section 2 (c) (iii), it  

has been laid down that every case of criminal contempt is required to be  

heard  and determined  by a  Bench of  not  less  than two Judges,  and  

therefore, the learned single Judge erred in passing the impugned order  

dated 08.12.2006 without there being any occasion for the same. The  

initiation of contempt proceeding was further challenged on the ground  

that it is the Registrar (Vigilance) who had failed to ensure compliance of  

the  interim  order  dated  22.3.2001  and  the  direction  therein  until  

31.05.2003,  on  which  date  the  concerned  officer  Shri  S.K.  Bansal,  

R.H.J.S. who passed the award had retired. Hence, the appellant who  

had joined the post of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) in the High Court of  

Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur on 5.1.2005 could have  

possibly no role for shielding or protecting the officer who had retired on  

31.05.2003 and the enquiry against him was ordered to be closed even  

by the learned single Judge himself vide order dated 16.10.2006.  

12. On a scrutiny of the sequence of events narrated hereinbefore, we  

are clearly of the view in the first place that the contempt alleged against  

the  appellant  would  not  amount  to  a  criminal  contempt  because  the  

alleged contempt even if made out would clearly at the best be of a civil  

nature, which is evident from Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act  

1971 which lays down as follows:

11

(a) “contempt of court” means civil contempt or  criminal contempt;

(b) “civil  contempt” means wilful  disobedience  to  any judgment,  decree,  direction,  order,  writ  or  other  process  of  a  court  or  wilful  breach of an undertaking given to a court;

(c) “criminal  contempt”  means the publication  (whether by words, spoken or written, or by  signs,  or  by  visible  representation,  or  otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any  other act whatsoever which-

(i) scandalizes  or  tends  to  scandalize,  or  lowers  or  tends  to  lower  the  authority of, any court; or

(ii) prejudices,  or  interferes or  tends to  interfere with, the due course of any  judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes  or  tends to  interfere  with,  or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the  administration of justice in any other  manner;

On perusal of the aforesaid provision enumerated under Section 2  

quoted  hereinbefore,  it  can  clearly  be  inferred  that  the  initiation  of  

contempt proceeding against the petitioner even as it stands, would not  

give rise to a proceeding for  criminal  contempt  and in  any event  the  

alleged contempt cannot be stretched beyond civil contempt under the  

prevailing facts and circumstances of the case discussed hereinbefore.  

Nevertheless,  it  would  not  be  correct  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  to  

contend  that  the  learned  single  Judge  was  not  authorised  to  initiate  

contempt  proceeding  against  the  appellant  merely  because  he  was  

12

sitting in a single Bench although he might have been in a position to  

notice whether the alleged action at the instance of any party or anyone  

else who obstructed the cause of justice, amounted to contempt of Court  

of a civil or criminal nature and yet would be precluded from initiating suo  

moto contempt proceedings.  The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 clearly  

postulates  the  existence  of  only  the  following  preconditions  before  a  

person can be held to have committed civil contempt:

“(i) There  must  be  a  judgment  or  order  or  decree or direction or writ or other process  of a court; or

An undertaking given to a court;

(ii) The judgment etc. must be of the court and  undertaking  must  have  been  given  to  a  court;

(iii) There  must  be  a  disobedience  to  such  judgment,  etc.  or  breach  of  such  undertaking;

(iv) The disobedience or  breach,  as  the case  may be, must be wilful.”   

Hence,  it  would  not  be  right  to  contend  that  even  though  the  

learned single Judge might have found material which persuaded him to  

form an opinion that a contempt has been committed, yet  the learned  

Judge  had  no  authority  or  jurisdiction  to  initiate  a  proceeding  for  

contempt against the person who indulged in such action.  Thus we find  

no  substance  in  the  plea  which  has  been  raised  on  behalf  of  the  

appellant on this count.

13

13. This now leads us to the next question and a more relevant  

one,  as  to  whether  a  proceeding  for  contempt  initiated  against  the  

appellant  can  be  held  to  be  sustainable  merely  on  speculation,  

assumption and inference drawn from facts  and circumstances of  the  

instant case.  In our considered opinion, the answer clearly has to be in  

the negative in view of the well-settled legal position reflected in a catena  

of decisions of this court that  contempt of a civil nature can be held to  

have been made out only if there has been a wilful disobedience of the  

order and even though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does  

not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful disobedience, a case  

for contempt cannot be held to have been made out.  In fact, if an order  

is  capable  of  more  than  one  interpretation  giving  rise  to  variety  of  

consequences, non-compliance of the same cannot be held to be wilful  

disobedience of the order so as to make out a case of contempt entailing  

the serious consequence including imposition of punishment.  However,  

when the Courts are confronted with a question as to whether a given  

situation could be treated to be a case of wilful disobedience, or a case of  

a lame excuse, in order to subvert its compliance, howsoever articulate it  

may  be,  will  obviously  depend  on  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  a  

particular case; but while deciding so, it would not be legally correct to be  

too  speculative  based on assumption  as  the  Contempt  of  Courts  Act  

1971  clearly  postulates  and  emphasizes  that  the  ingredient  of  wilful  

disobedience must  be there before anyone can be hauled up for  the  

charge of contempt of a civil nature.

14

14. In view of the aforesaid legal position, when the facts of the instant  

case are analyzed, it is clear that the learned single Judge had passed  

an interim order  of  stay  in  favour  of  the  Insurance Company against  

implementation of the award passed in favour of the claimant and the  

said  order  was  not  complied  with  even  upto  the  year  2003  and  the  

reason  for  non-implementation  of  the  order  of  stay  was  not  

communicated by the registry of the High Court for which the appellant-  

Deputy Registrar (Judicial) has been held to be instrumental. The learned  

single Judge further has taken note of  the letter dated 22.12.2005 by  

which  the  appellant  herein-Shri  Dinesh  Kumar  Gupta,  who  was  

functioning as Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on the said date had enquired  

about the case number and the date of the order which was required by  

the  Registrar  General  (Vigilance)  and  the  learned  single  Judge  has  

initiated the contempt proceedings on the inference that it is the appellant  

who was instrumental due to which the interim order of stay passed by  

the  learned  single  Judge  way  back  on  22.3.2001  in  S.B.  Civil  Writ  

Petition No. 1072 of 2001 was not implemented.  If the learned single  

Judge  had  called  the  appellant  with  files  and  perused  the  same,  he  

himself would have been satisfied that on the relevant date, the appellant  

was not Deputy Registrar and it was not necessary to initiate contempt  

proceeding against him.

15

15. However,  we  cannot  lose  sight  of  the  most  relevant  and  

important  fact  that  when  the  interim  order  of  stay  was  passed  on  

22.03.2001 by the learned single Judge, it was first of all the duty of the  

counsel  for the petitioner  United India Insurance Company Ltd. or the  

petitioner  Insurance  Company  itself  to  obtain  a  certified  copy  of  the  

interim order of stay and then communicate the same to the Presiding  

Judge of the MACT who was Shri S.K. Bansal. The petitioner herein Shri  

Gupta admittedly was not functioning in the High Court in any capacity in  

the year 2001 or thereafter until 2005 and hence he cannot be attributed  

with an ulterior motive to scuttle or ensure that the interim order of stay  

may not be implemented as admittedly for several years thereafter, at  

least  upto  the  year  2003,  when  the  MACT  Judge  Shri  Bansal  

superannuated, the petitioner was not even posted in the High Court as  

he  was  posted  in  the  High  Court,  Jaipur  Bench  as  Deputy  Registrar  

(Judicial)  for  the  first  time in  the year  2005.   Hence,  what  transpired  

between the date of the order of interim stay passed in 2001 upto 2003  

when  the  learned  Judge,  MACT  Shri  Bansal  retired,  no  malafide  or  

ulterior motive can at all be attributed to the appellant herein Shri Gupta  

so as to initiate a contempt proceeding against him.  Therefore, even  

though the order was not  complied, the reason or liability  for  its  non-

compliance cannot be fastened on the appellant herein- Shri Gupta so as  

to  justify  initiation  of  contempt  proceeding  against  him.   Hence,  non-

compliance  of  the interim order  of  stay  passed by the learned single  

Judge way back in the year 2001 which was passed much prior to 2005,  

16

when the appellant joined as Deputy Registrar (Judicial) in the High  

Court  cannot be attributed to him.  The appellant  obviously could not  

have been expected to orally remember the particulars of each and every  

order  passed by High Court  on judicial  side and sent  to  the registry,  

which  was  not  implemented.  Hence,  if  he  wrote  to  the  Registrar  

(Vigilance) seeking the case number of the pending matter as also the  

date of the stay order, the said letter cannot be treated to have been  

written with an intention to obstruct implementation of the interim order of  

stay which was passed four years earlier in the year 2001.  Hence, it  

would  be  a  wholly  unfounded  assumption,  so  as  to  infer  that  the  

appellant did so, to obviate or obstruct implementation of the stay order  

or forestall the same in any manner.   

16. In our view, if the learned single Judge was of the view that the  

interim order of stay granted by the Court on 22.03.2001 in favour of the  

Insurance Company staying execution of the award of compensation in  

favour of the claimant was obstructed, the learned single Judge ought to  

have hauled up those officers in the registry for contempt who had been  

functioning in the registry at the relevant time and factually it  was not  

correct for the learned Judge to assume that it was the petitioner who  

obstructed  the  administration  of  justice  so  as  to  justify  initiation  of  

contempt proceedings against an officer who joined five years later on  

the ground that he had sought the case number and the date of the order  

which was to be implemented in order to forestall the same when in fact it  

17

was already not implemented for a long number of years which was  

more than four years prior to the appellant’s posting in the High Court.  

As already stated, an officer in the registry who joined approximately five  

years later prior to the interim order of stay which was passed, he cannot  

legitimately be hauled up for contempt merely on unfounded assumption  

and speculation that it was he who was instrumental in obstructing the  

administration of justice by ensuring that the order of stay may not be  

implemented.  

17. As already observed, the first and foremost onus to communicate  

an order of stay is on the counsel or the party in whose favour the order  

was passed by obtaining a certified copy of the order passed by the court  

and although the registry is also required to communicate the order to the  

concerned  Court  where  it  is  required  to  be  implemented,  the  same  

essentially is in the nature of a formal communication and if the same  

had not been communicated by the erstwhile officers of the registry for  

any  reason  whatsoever,  including  an  assumed  motive  of  its  non-

implementation,  a  proceeding  for  contempt  could  have  been  initiated  

against an officer who was posted at the relevant time and had failed to  

communicate the order to the concerned Court which had to implement  

it.  But, after an unusually long lapse of time, which in this case is more  

than four years, an officer like the appellant who subsequently joined the  

registry, cannot be attributed with an oblique motive of obstructing the  

cause of justice merely because he had sought the case number and  

18

date of  the order of  stay from the Registrar  (Vigilance) in order to  

furnish  a  copy  of  the  order  which  was  required  by  the  Registrar  

(Vigilance). In fact, when the Registrar (Vigilance) sought a copy of the  

interim order of stay, it was his duty to specify the case number and the  

date of the order as it  cannot be expected that the copy of the order  

could be sent to the Registrar (Vigilance) without the case number or its  

date.  In any view, it would be too far fetched to infer that the same was  

done to shield the learned Judge of the MACT Shri Bansal against whom  

vigilance enquiry was ordered, completely missing the relevant point that  

he had already superannuated two years earlier after which the learned  

Single Judge himself  had ordered for  closure of  the vigilance enquiry  

against him.   

18. Besides this, it would also not be correct to overlook or ignore an  

important statutory ingredient of contempt of a civil nature given out u/s 2  

(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 that the disobedience to the order  

alleging contempt has to satisfy the test that it is a wilful disobedience to  

the order.  Bearing this important factor in mind, it is relevant to note that  

a proceeding for civil contempt would not lie if the order alleged to have  

been  disobeyed  itself  provides  scope  for  reasonable  or  rational  

interpretation of an order or circumstance which is the factual position in  

the instant matter.  It would equally not be correct to infer that a party  

although acting due to misapprehension of the correct legal position and  

in good faith without any motive to defeat or defy the order of the Court,  

19

should be viewed as a serious ground so as to give rise to a contempt  

proceeding.

19. To  reinforce  the  aforesaid  legal  position  further,  it  would  be  

relevant  and  appropriate  to  take  into  consideration  the  settled  legal  

position as reflected in the judgment and order delivered in the matter of  

Ahmad Ali Vs. Supdt., District Jail, AIR 1987 SC 1491 : Supp. SCC 556  

that mere unintentional disobedience is not enough to hold anyone guilty  

of contempt and although, disobedience might have been established,  

absence of wilful disobedience on the part of the contemnor, will not hold  

him guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct.  

Thus, accidental or unintentional disobedience is not sufficient to justify  

one for holding guilty of contempt.  It is further relevant to bear in mind  

the  settled  law  on  the  law  of  contempt  that  casual  or  accidental  or  

unintentional acts of disobedience under the circumstances which negate  

any suggestion of contumacy, would amount to a contempt in theory only  

and does not render the contemnor liable to punishment and this was the  

view expressed also in cases reported in AIR 1954 Patna 513, State of  

Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari and AIR 1957 Patna 528, N. Bakshi Vs.  

O.K. Ghosh.

20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the  

learned  single  Judge  inferred  and  assumed  erroneously  that  the  

appellant  had the intention to obstruct  the administration of  justice by  

20

being instrumental in ensuring that the interim order passed in 2001  

may not  be  implemented  oblivious  of  the  fact  that  the  appellant  was  

posted in the registry of the High Court only four years later in 2005 and  

hence  non-implementation  of  the  interim  order  of  stay  cannot  be  

attributed to the appellant to shield the Judge of the MACT, Jaipur who  

had retired way back in the year 2003 against whom the enquiry was  

ordered  to  be  closed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  himself.   Thus,  

initiation of the contempt proceeding against the petitioner by the learned  

single  Judge  is  based  on  a  wholly  wrong  premise  based  on  

unsustainable  and unfounded facts  which  cannot  be treated  sufficient  

material so as to initiate contempt proceeding in spite of absence of any  

degree of fault or misconduct or even unintentional disobedience to the  

order for the reasons assigned hereinbefore.   

21. Hence, we set aside the impugned order dated 08.12.2006 passed  

by the learned single Judge by which the proceeding for contempt has  

been ordered to be initiated by registering a regular contempt proceeding  

against  the  appellant  and  the  same  shall  be  treated  as  dropped.  

Consequently,  the appeal is allowed directing the parties to bear their  

cost.   

………………………………….J (J. M.  Panchal)

………………………………….J           (Gyan Sudha Misra)

New Delhi, October 8, 2010  

21