JUDGMENT
Khan, J.
1. Respondents are charged of disobeying the
orders passed by this court dated 23.3.93 and having
committed contempt. Whether they are guilty is the
question.
2. Petitioner, a registered society filed writ
petition (CWP No. 1657/93) for restraining R-2 from
handing over any part of the Asiad Village Complex
including leasing out of the Asiad tower and areas
appurtenant thereto to anyone. It also sought interim
restraint order in CM No. 2675/93 on similar lines.
3. Respondents were put on notice in this petition
on 23.3.1993 when an interim stay order was also passed
which is at the root of controversy and which is
reproduced hereunder for proper appreciation.
“The respondents are restrained from leasing
out or alienating any part of the Asiad Village
Complex without the permission of the court till
the next date.”
Petitioners allege that respondents had
blatantly violated this order by auctioning the Asiad
Tower for running of a restaurant to R-3 and had thus
committed contempt of court. Their senior counsel
Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi claimed that they had done so
deliberately and willfully and they were therefore,
liable to be punished for contempt. He asserted that
Asiad Tower was very much a part of Asiad Village
Complex and was, therefore, covered by the terms of the
court order and in any case if respondents entertained
any doubt about this, they should have sought
clarification from this court before going ahead with
their auction plans. He cited Supreme Court judgment in
Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh to
suggest that misunderstanding or a party’s own
understanding of the court order was not a permissible
defense in a contempt action.
4. Both, official and private respondents have
filed their reply explaining their position. It is
denied by them that they had deliberately or willfully
disobeyed the court order in question. It is pointed
out by them that petitioner’s prayer in both the writ
petition and the interim stay application (CM 2675/93)
was to restrain the DDA from leasing out or alienating
any part of the Asiad Village Complex including the
Asiad Tower and its surrounding areas which by itself
left no scope for doubt that even they were regarding
the Asiad Tower different from the Asiad Village Complex
like its surrounding areas. Therefore since the interim
restraint order specifically covered Asiad Village
Complex only and the prayer in respect of Asiad Tower
and its surrounding areas was impliedly declined. This
is buttressed by dismissal of petitioner’s allied CM
No. 5267/93 also on 27.11.1993 complaining of violation
of court order dated 23.3.1993 when the DDA had issued
advertisement for auctioning of the Asiad Tower. It is
also avered by them that they had taken due care to
ascertain the legal position in the matter and had
sought advice from the Standing Counsel of DDA who had
opined on the same lines and on which basis a second
advertisement notice was issued and the auction process
subsequently completed which action was later affirmed
in CWP No. 3319/2002 vide judgment dated 25.9.2002 and,
therefore, respondents could not be charged of
committing any breach of the court order dated
23.3.1993.
5. It requires to be made clear at the very outset
that contempt power was exercisable in the interest of
general public and to ensure that the faith and
confidence in the administration of justice was not
eroded. It was so invokable to protect and safeguard
the majesty of law and the dignity of court and the
integrity of the court orders and not for enabling the
parties to settle their personal scores or to gain an
upper hand or advantage in litigative spirit. A
contempt of court was the matter between the court and
the alleged contemner and a litigant inviting the
attention of the court only enjoyed the status of an
informer and did not assume the role of a complainant or
that of prosecutor in the contempt proceedings. He
could not insist upon punishing an alleged contemner
irrespective of whether or not court felt satisfied
about it because what was contumacious was for the court
to decide.
6. With this preface and given regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case, it does not appear to us
that respondents had willfully or deliberately disobeyed
court order dated 23.3.1993 restraining them from
alienating any part of the Asiad Village Complex. This
is so because petitioner’s own prayer in the writ
petition and the CM was suggestive of the fact that they
had treated the Asiad Tower and the surrounding areas
differently from the Asiad Village Complex and since the
restraint order covered only the Asiad Village Complex.
Respondents could not be held responsible for dealing
with the Asiad Tower.
7. Apart from this, this court had already
dismissed petitioner’s alleged CM No. 5267/93 on the
issue affirming the action of DDA which was also
supported later by the judgment in CWP No. 3319/2002
filed by one V.P. Singh. Regard being had to all this it
could not be said that respondents had deliberately or
willfully disobeyed the court in question. Because even
if it was assumed that the Asiad Tower formed a part of
the Asiad complex, they had taken sufficient precaution
to seek legal advice and had evolved the requisite
understanding of the court order on the strength of
orders passed by this court in petitioners allied CM
5267/93 and also CWP No. 3319/2002.
8. The legal position enunciated in the Supreme
Court judgment cited at the Bar does not persuade us to
take any contrary view in the matter because the court
had held the contemners guilty in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and after finding that the
contemner had deliberately avoided the implementation of
the court order. The court found:-
“The defense of understanding is not only
moonshine but a deliberate attempt to overreach
this court’s order and as such willfulness in the
matter of disregard of this court’s order is
apparent on the face of it and we are not prepared
to accept the same as a defense of an action for
deliberate and willful disregard of an order of the
court. We find that the actions on the part of
the respondent authorities are not only
unreasonable but deliberate and spiteful and that
too in spite of a specific direction in all the
five judgments so far obtained by the petitioners
in their favor. Avoidance is written large and
it would be difficult for us to consume the same
without any particular rhyme or reason.”
9. Therefore, even going by the terms of this
judgment, it all depended upon the facts and
circumstances of each case whether the defense of
understanding of a court order put up by the contemner
pointed out to his deliberate attempt to disregard the
order or whether his understanding was bonafide and
genuine.
10. In the present case, respondents’ understanding
was based on the petitioners prayer made in their writ
petition and stay application and also on the orders
passed by this court in their allied CM and judgment in
CWP No. 3319/2002. They cannot be as such charged of
having set up an understanding which had no basis or
which was aimed at defeating the court order. It would
have more desirable if they had sought the clarification
in the matter but once their action was affirmed by this
court in colateral proceedings, that should set the
controversy at rest for good.
11. Viewed thus, Petition is resultantly dismissed
and rule issued against the contemnors is discharged and
proceedings dropped.