[2026:RJ-JP:35072] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1416/2026 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10244/2026 CNR: RJHC020805312026 | URN: CCP / 1481U / 2026 M/s Dayanand Contractor, Through Its Partner Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Dayanand Aged About 50 Years, 1301, Sector-3, Rohtak, Haryana. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Abhay Kumar, IAS, Acs, Wr, Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Baghwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Pradeep Rustagi, Chief Engineer, Water Resources (North), Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. 4. Amarjeet Singh, Chief Engineer And A.s. (West), Wr And Secy. IGNB, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Indira Gandhi Panchayati Raj Bhawan, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Rastogi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 01/09/2026 1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non- compliance of the ex-parte order dated 09.06.2026 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10244/2026. 2. Mr. Ankur Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 09.06.2026, this court has specifically [2026:RJ-JP:35072] (2 of 2) [CCP-1416/2026] directed that any further order in respect to contract in dispute if passed by the respondent(s), shall remain subject to the decision of the writ petition. Learned counsel further submits that the factum of the said order was duly communicated to the respondents on 12.06.2026, however, despite that work order has been issued by the respondents on 18.06.2026 which amounts to disobedience of the order dated 09.06.2026. 3. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Para 5 of the order dated 09.06.2026, reads as under:- “In the meanwhile, any further order in respect to contract in dispute if passed by the respondents shall remain subject to the decision of the outcome of this writ petition.” 5. From a bare perusal of the above, it is more than evident that no direction to restrain the respondents from issuing any work order was passed by this court. The direction was specific that issuance of any further order in respect of contract in dispute if passed by the respondents, would be subject to the decision of the writ petition. 6. In light of the said directions, the issuance of the work order by the respondents on 18.06.2026 cannot be considered as a contempt being committed or disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 09.06.2026. 7. The contempt petition thus, lacks merit and is dismissed. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J 9/Anu