[2025:RJ-JP:31003-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 21/2023 In D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.663/2015 Hargobind Upadhyay Son of Chiman Lal, Aged About 67 Years, Resident of Pathar Ka Chowk, Mukkam Post, Marwar Mundwa Dist. Nagaur Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal, Additional Chief Secretary, Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Shri Bhaskar Sharma, Director of Sanskrit Education, Sanskrit Shiksha, Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur. 3. Shri Murari Lal, Division Sanskrit Shiksha Officer, Division Ajmer, Sanskrit Department, Topdara Ajmer. 4. State of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Education Dept. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.P. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG assisted by Ms. Shikha Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 11/08/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received the amount as reflected in Annexure-R-1. However, it is submitted that the amount payable by the Management ought to be released by the State, as the Management has been taken over by the State. [2025:RJ-JP:31003-DB] (2 of 2) [CCP-21/2023] 2. We have noticed that the present proceedings are for contempt, with reference to a judgment passed by the Court wherein it was observed that the directions therein would apply to all concerned. However, in our view, such directions issued in the said judgment cannot be construed so as to permit the filing of contempt proceedings by a person who was neither the writ petitioner nor a party to the said case. The claim of the petitioner, if any, can always be taken up before the concerned Authority in accordance with law by relying on the judgment rendered by this Court in “State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. The Management Committee Sh. Bhagwan Das Todi College” (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.663/2015) and other connected matters decided on 06.11.2015. 3. However, the contempt proceedings are misconceived and the respondents cannot be held to have committed any contempt within the meaning of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The present Civil Contempt Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Notices stand discharged. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J AMIT/33