[2025:RJ-JP:39686] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 345/2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3182/2016 1. Sushila Devi Wife Of Late Shri Chandra Prakash Sharma, (Since Deceased Through) R/o House No 1/44 Champa Nagar Beawar District Ajmer. 1/1. Anil Kishore Sharma Son Of Late Shri Chandra Prakaesh Sharma, R/o House No. 1/44 Champa Nagar Beawar District Ajmer Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Local Body, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Inderjeet Singh, Director, Local Bodies Cum Special Secretary Government Of Rajasthan. 3. Mr. Divyansh Singh, Commissioner/ SDM Of Municipal Counsil, Beawar, District Ajmer, (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.N. Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with Mr. Manoj Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 25/09/2025 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 02.09.2024 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3182/2016. 2. Heard. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties. 3. Vide order dated 02.09.2024, the Court had directed the respondents to decide the matter in pursuance to the remand order dated 23.12.2015 and further directed to comply with the order at the earliest and not more than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. [2025:RJ-JP:39686] (2 of 3) [CCP-345/2025] 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order of the court has been complied with as the application of the petitioner in pursuance to the remand order dated 23.12.2015 has been decided by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Beawar vide order dated 23.09.2025. 5. The order of the Court passed on 02.09.2024 was in clear terms directing the respondents to comply with the remand order dated 23.12.2015 at the earliest and not more than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The certified copy of the order was served upon the respondents alongwith the application on 13.09.2024. 7. The respondents have decided the case of the petitioner after a period of more than one year from the date of submitting the certified copy of the order whereas, direction of the Court was that the respondents should decided the matter of the petitioner within a period of six months. 8. The respondents have filed reply to the contempt petition with the averments that initially the file related to the petitioner was not traceable and they filed a report with the concerned Police Station for missing of the record and wrote letters on 16.04.2025 and 25.04.2025 to the petitioner for submitting the relevant documents. It was also submitted that in response to the letter dated 16.04.2025 and 25.04.2025, the petitioner submitted documents on 02.05.2025 and thereafter, the authorities having taken into consideration the documents submitted by the petitioner, decided the matter of the petitioner vide order dated 23.09.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:39686] (3 of 3) [CCP-345/2025] 9. After going through the averments made in the reply to the contempt petition, the Court finds that the respondents are not able to show that what sincere efforts they had made for compliance of the order uptill 08.04.2025. 10. Further, after submission of the documents by the petitioner pursuant to the letters of the respondents dated 16.04.2025 and 25.04.2025, the matter was decided after a period of more than four and half months. 11. From the explanation submitted by the respondents, the Court is not convinced as regards the delay in compliance of the order. 12. Though, the respondents have complied with the order of the Court but that too after a delay of more than six months. The respondents-authorities cannot be allowed to sit over the directions of the Court for indefinite period. Once the Court has issued directions for making compliance within a stipulated period in specific terms as like in this case where the Court has directed the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner within a period of six months. 13. For delay in making compliance of the order, this Court warns the respondents-authorities to be cautious in future regarding compliance of the directions of the Court an in future such lapses would be dealt seriously. 14. Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands disposed of, as above. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /19