[2025:RJ-JD:2621-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Writ Contempt No. 93/2022 Lokesh Menaria son of Shri Bhagwan Ji Menaria, aged about 28 years, resident of District Udaipur, (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Mr. Chetan Ram Deora, District Collector, Udaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Mr. Arun Kumar Hasija, Secretary, Uit, Udaipur 3. Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Udaipur. 4. Mr. Vinay Katta, Regional Officer, State Pollution Control Board, Udaipur. 5. Mr. G.P. Soni, Retired Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department. 6. Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, Advocate. 7. Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, Advocate ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Menaria, present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Jala and Mr. DS Pidiyar Mr. Anurag Shukla HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT Order 15/01/2025 1. This Contempt Case has been filed alleging willful and intentional violation of the order dated 6th April 2018 passed in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4371 of 2018. 2. The aforesaid order seems to have been passed taking note of D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7077 of 2014 in which the detailed order was passed by this Court on 2nd February 2018. [2025:RJ-JD:2621-DB] (2 of 3) [WCP-93/2022] 3. In the order dated 6th April 2018, this Court having regard to the fact that the Committee was already constituted to look into the issue of free flow of water into the lakes in the city of Udaipur, permitted the present petitioner to file a representation to the Committee which was expected to look into his grievances and pass such orders as and when required to be passed. 4. Mr. Lokesh Menaria, the petitioner appearing-in-person submits that he was constrained to lay the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Committee had failed to decide the representation moved by him. The petitioner in-person further first refers to an order dated 14th November 2024 passed by this Court to submit that the District Collector, Udaipur was directed to file an affidavit stating as to the steps taken by him after the aforesaid order dated 6th April 2018 was passed by this Court in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4371 of 2018. 5. As to the delay in deciding the representation moved by the petitioner, we are inclined to refer to the decision in “Sri L.V. Subramanyam v. The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature” Civil Appeal Nos.1644-1645/2024 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that delay in compliance of the Court’s orders cannot be a ground to institute proceedings under the contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We are further of the opinion that the present contempt case now needs to be consigned on compliance of the order passed by this Court directing the Committee to take a decision, which has now taken a decision. 6. However, the petitioner in-person submits that he intends to contest the order passed by the Committee rejecting his representation. [2025:RJ-JD:2621-DB] (3 of 3) [WCP-93/2022] 7. In our opinion, no such adjudication is permissible in the present proceedings and the petitioner shall have liberty to avail the remedy available to him in law, in this regard. 8. This Contempt Case is disposed of accordingly. (YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J 72-Arti/-