1. Since common question(s) of law and facts arise for consideration in these petitions, therefore, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by way of a common judgment.

2. The petitioner(s) has filed the instant contempt petition(s) solely on the ground that the respondent has failed to comply with the judgment(s) in question.

3. It is more than settled that mere power to punish the contemnor in summary proceedings is to be used sparingly and with circumspection. In a contempt petition as indeed, in every other case the decision must necessarily rest on the facts of that case.

4. In Jiwani Kumari Parekh vs. Satyabrata Chakravorty, AIR 1991 SC 326 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that unless willful or deliberate disobedience of the order of the Court is committed, the charge of contempt cannot be brought home. Even bona fide misinterpretation of the Court judgment/order cannot attract contempt. A party can be held guilty in case disobedience of the judgment or order is willful or deliberate.

5. In Niaz Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others (1994) 6 SCC 332 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the framers of while defining civil contempt have said that it must be willful disobedience of any judgment, decree etc and, therefore, before a contemnor is punished for non-compliance of a direction of a Court, the Court must not only be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction or writ, but should also be satisfied that such disobedience was willful and intentional. If from the circumstances of a particular case, the Court is satisfied that although there has been a disobedience, but the disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the Court will not punish the alleged contemnor.

6. What would be willful disobedience was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Godha and others (2003) 11 SCC 1 and it was held that ‘willful disobedience’ means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law prohibits or with the specific intent to fail to do something that law requires to be done, that is to say with bad purpose either to disobey or disregard the law. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it signifies an act done with an evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. It was further observed that the acts or omissions have to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

7. The legal position has been lucidly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others (2010) 12 SCC 770 , wherein it was observed as under:

“ 17. 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 High Court of H.P. 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.”

23. 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, should be viewed as a serious ground so as to give rise to a contempt proceeding.

24. 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 v. Supdt., District Jail, AIR 1987 SC 1491 as also in B.K. Kar v. High Court of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 1367 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.”

8. Thus, what can be taken to be settled on the basis of the aforesaid exposition of law is that it is duty of the Court to punish a person who tries to obstruct the course of justice or brings to disrepute the institution of Judiciary. However, this power has to be exercised not casually or lightly, but with great care and circumspection. Contempt proceedings serve a dual purpose of vindication of the public interest by punishment of the contumacious conduct and coercion to compel the contemnor to do what the law requires of him.

9. A question whether there is contempt of Court or not is a serious one. The Court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation. It behoves the Court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in Courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished. The lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one’s duty and in defiance of authority. Punishment under the law of Contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one’s duty and in defiance of authority.

10. While dealing with the contempt petitions, the Courts are not required to travel beyond the four corners of order, which is alleged to have been disobeyed or disregarded deliberately and willfully. In this connection, it shall be apposite to make a fruitful recapitulation of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan vs. Tarun Bajaj and others 2014 AIR SCW 1218, wherein it was held that:

“ 9. Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto the law courts power to punish an offender for his willful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizens that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under . The proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide: V.G. Nigam & Ors. v. Kedar Nath Gupta & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 2153 ; Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 3468 ; Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1405 ; Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 942; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705 ; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 1299 ).

10 . Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is wilful. The word wilful introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of ones state of mind. Wilful means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct. (Vide: S. Sundaram Pillai, etc. v. V.R. Pattabiraman; AIR 1985 SC 582 ; Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 2185 ; Niaz Mohammad & Ors. etc.etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 308 ; Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, AIR 2000 SC 1880 ; M/s. Ashok Paper Kamgar Union & Ors. v. Dharam Godha & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 105 ; State of Orissa & Ors. v. Md. Illiyas, AIR 2006 SC 258 ; and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, (2013) 9 SCC 753 ).

11. In Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 2071 , this Court dealt with a case wherein direction was issued to the Union of India to pay the amount of Rs.
4 lakhs to the applicant therein and release him from defence service. The said amount was paid to the applicant after deducting the income tax payable on the said amount. While dealing with the contempt application, this Court held that withholding the amount cannot be held to be either malafide or was there any scope to impute that the respondents intended to violate the direction of this Court.

12. In Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1293 , the Court while dealing with the issue whether a doubt persisted as to the applicability of the order of this Court to complainants held that it would not give rise to a contempt petition. The court was dealing with a case wherein the statutory authorities had come to the conclusion that the order of this court was not applicable to the said complainants while dealing with the case under the provision of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

13. It is well settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of . (See: Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retd.), AIR 2008 (Supp-2) SC 1837; and Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v.C.E.S.C. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 735 ): (2008 AIR SCW 7951).”

11. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Contempt Petition No. 415 of 2014, titled Rulda Ram Vs. Rakesh Kanwar, decided on 28th February, 2015.

12. The discussion on the subject would be incomplete unless and until the reference is made to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avishek Raja and others vs. Sanjay Gupta (2017) 8 SCC 435 , wherein the law on the subject was culled out as under:-

“20. The contours of power of the Court so far as commission of civil contempt is concerned have been elaborated upon in a number of pronouncements of this Court. Illustratively, reference may be made to the following observations in Kapildeo Prasad Sah versus State of Bihar (1999) 7 SCC 569 (SCC pp.573-74, paras 9-11).

9. For holding the respondents to have committed contempt, civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that there has been wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the court. Power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation of the court's order. Since notice of contempt and punishment for contempt is of far reaching consequence [and] these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court's order has been made out. Whether disobedience is wilful in a particular case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. Judicial orders are to be properly understood and complied with. Even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience particularly when the attention of the person is drawn to the court's orders and its implications.…

10. Jurisdiction to punish for contempt exists to provide ultimate sanction against the person who refuses to comply with the order of the court or disregards the order continuously. .....

11. No person can defy court's order. Willful would exclude casual, accidental bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order. A petitioner who complains breach of court's order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the court's order.”

21. Similar is the view expressed by this Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1 , Anil Kumar Shahi v. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav (2008) 14 SCC 115 , Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5 SCC 352 , Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC 613 , Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop.Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami (2008) 5 SCC 339 and Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati (2001) 7 SCC 530. In view of the consistency in the opinions rendered therein, it will not be necessary to burden this order by any detailed reference to what has been held in the above cases except to reiterate that the standard of proof required to hold a person guilty of contempt would not be the same as in a criminal proceedings and the breach alleged shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt(Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati).

22. More recent in point of time is the view expressed by this court in Noor Saba v. Anoop Mishra (2013) 10 SCC 248 wherein the scope of the contempt power in case of a breach of a court’s order has been dealt with in para 14 of the Report in the following manner (SCC pp. 252-53) .

“14.To hold the respondents or anyone of them liable for contempt this Court has to arrive at a conclusion that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court. The exercise of contempt jurisdiction is summary in nature and an adjudication of the liability of the alleged contemnor for wilful disobedience of the Court is normally made on admitted and undisputed facts. In the present case not only has there been a shift in the stand of the petitioner with regard to the basic facts on which commission of contempt has been alleged even the said new/altered facts do not permit an adjudication in consonance with the established principles of exercise of contempt jurisdiction so as to enable the Court to come to a conclusion that any of the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court ”

23. Similarly, in Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran (2014) 3 SCC 373 the issue has been dealt with in a manner which may be of relevance to the present case. Para 19 of the Report is as follows:(SCC p-381)

19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act , 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor the plea of equities can be considered. Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above.”

13. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, I have no difficulty to conclude that the instant contempt proceedings are clearly misconceived as there is no proof or even a case made out to conclude that the respondents have deliberately and willfully, that too, with an evil intent or a bad motive or purpose, disobeyed the orders of the Court. The same are accordingly dismissed. Notices discharged. However, the petitioners are at liberty to avail of such remedy, as may be available to them, under the law.