1 2025:CGHC:43611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 881 of 2022 1 - Gend Singh Rajput, S/o Late Shri Mithu Singh Rajput, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Working As Assistant Revenue Inspector, Municipal Council, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri Basavaraju S. (IAS), Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492101. 2 - Shri Remigius Ekka, Director, Director, Urban Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492101. 3 - Jitendra Bahadur Singh Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (Order on Board) 28.08.2025. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that vide order dated 17.12.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No.10693/2019, the respondent authorities were directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation within a period of three months from the date of submission of representation. The petitioner submitted the representation on 30.12.2019 and the same was decided by respondent authorities on 25.05.2022, as such, there is willful disobedience of the order of this Court. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents/contemnors has filed a copy of order dated 25.05.2022, whereby the representation of the petitioner was duly considered and rejected due to non-availability of post of Assistant Revenue Inspector in Municipal Corporation and there is no provision for sanctioning the post separately only for absorption, for which unconditional apology in respect of the delay that was unwittingly 3 occasioned in following the directions was tendered. Learned counsel also submits that in the instant case the alleged contempt took place when the period of three months from the date of submission of petitioner’s representation dated 30.12.2019 received on 08.01.2020 – ended either on 30.03.2020 or 08.04.2020, the limitation period for filing a contempt petition in relation to the High Court’s order ended on 30.03.2020 or 08.04.2021. The instant petition filed on 25.08.2022, as such, the same is not maintainable in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Learned counsel also submits that the order of this Court has been complied with even before the filing of the instant petition. As regards delay in compliance, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision dated 19.08.2025 of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of A.K. Jayaprakash (Dead) Through LRs. v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao and Another [Cont. Pet. No. (Civil) Nos. 1002-1003 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No.s 6732-6733 of 2009], whereby Hon’ble Apex Court held that delay in compliance without willful intent does not amount to contempt of Court. Thus, the instant contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 4 material available on record. 4. Admittedly, vide order dated 17.12.2019, this Court directed the respondents/contemnors to decide the representation of the petitioner within three months from the date of submission of representation. The petitioner moved representation 30.12.2019, which was decided by the respondents/contemnors on 25.06.2022 and the contempt petition was filed on 25.08.2022, i.e. the representation of the petitioner was decided before filing the contempt petition. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of A.K. Jayaprakash (supra) held in paras 16, 17 and 18 as under :- “16. The question that arises for consideration is whether the delayed compliance constitutes willful disobedience so as to attract the jurisdiction of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 17. In Ashok Paper kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and Others1, this Court has held that contempt jurisdiction is intended to uphold the majesty of law and not to settle personal grievances. Similarly, in Rama narang v. Ramesh Narang and Another2, in a case of civil contempt, the breach must be deliberate and 1(2003) 11 SCC 1 2(2006) 11 SCC 114 5 intentional. 18. Tested on the anvil of the above principles, we find that although the Bank did not effect payment within the time permitted by this Court, the material placed on record do not demonstrate that the delay in compliance was borne out of any wilful or contumacious intent. The explanation tendered refers to administrative hurdles post-merger and retrieval of records dating back over three decades. While such circumstances cannot justify laxity in complying with orders of this Court, the element of mens rea, essential for sustaining a chare of civil contempt, cannot be inferred merely from the factum of delay.” 6. Insofar as the decision on the representation of the petitioner within three months is concerned, it is evident that two orders dated 25.05.2022 of Deputy Secretary and 15.06.2022 of Joint Director, Director of Urban Administration and Planning, were passed to decide the representation of the petitioner that too after hearing oral submission of the petitioner and the same were communicated to him, before filing the instant contempt petition. Thus, there is no willful intent and delay in compliance of the Court’s order and the same does not 6 amount to contempt of Court. 7. For the reason aforesaid, the contempt petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2025.08.28 16:42:08 +0530