1 / 9 2026:CGHC:25972 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1030 of 2022 • Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Shobha Registration No.463, Through Its Secretary / Incharge Shiv Kumar Sahu, S/o Dwarikaram Sahu, Age 50 Years, R/o Head Post Mainpur, Jayanti Nagar, Block Mainpur, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus • Namrata Gandhi Then Collector Gariyaband Presently- Joint Secretary, C.G. Government, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents with CONT No. 1034 of 2022 • Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Mainpur Registration No. 1663, Through Its Secretary / Incharge Dinesh Kumar Kamlesh, S/o Amar Singh Kamlesh, Age- 37 Years, R/o Head Post- Gram Jidar, Block- Mainpur, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus • Namrata Gandhi Then Collector - Gariyaband, Presently Joint Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent with CONT No. 1049 of 2022 • Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Kandekela Registration No. 1643, Branch - Mainpur, Through Its Secretary/ Incharge Ganesh Singh Thakur, S/o PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 9 - Late Shri Jagdish Singh Thakur, Age - 50 Years, R/o - Village Post - Amlipadar, Block - Mainpur, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner versus • Namrata Gandhi Then Collector- Gariyaband, Presently - Joint Secretary, C.G. Government, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent with CONT No. 1090 of 2022 • Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Amlipadar, Registration No. 1632, Branch - Mainpur, Through Its Secretary / Incharge Bhanupratap Yadav, S/o Shri Laxman Yadav, Age - 30 Years, R/o - Village Post - Amlipadar, Block - Mainpur - District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus • Namrata Gandhi Then Collector - Gariyaband Presently - Joint Secretary, C.G. Government, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent with CONT No. 1066 of 2022 • Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Dhorra Registration No.1611, Branch Mainpur, Through Its Secretary/ Incharge Tankdhar Sahu, S/o Late Shri Amru Ram Sahu, Age 55 Years, R/o Village Post Gram Tairalkhuti, Block Mainpur, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 3 / 9 • Namrata Gandhi Then Collector - Gariyaband Presently - Joint Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Srijan Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate with Mr. Sanchit Bhatt, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 24/06/2026 1. Since the issue involved in all these contempt petitions is identical, it is considered appropriate to dispose of these contempt petitions by this common order. 2. Petitioners who are Co-operative Societies within the district Gariyaband, have filed these contempt petitions alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 25.06.2021 passed in WPC No. 2515/2021 and WPC No. 2513/2021, order dated 19.07.2021 passed in WPC No. 2824/2021, order dated 07.07.2021 passed in WPC No. 2709/2021 and order dated 06.07.2021 passed in WPC No. 2692/2021. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioners are the co-operative societies. According to the policy formulated by the State Government, petitioners are also engaged in procurement of paddy from the farmers under the tri partite agreement between the Chhattisgarh State Cooperating Marketing Federation Limited through District Marketing Officer, the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited and Societies like petitioners. During kharif season 2020-21, petitioners society procured paddy and transported accordingly. However, certain shortage was noted. The authorities thereafter have 4 / 9 taken a decision to lodge F.I.R. against many of the societies within the State and therefore writ petitions were filed by the petitioners-Societies. The writ petitions filed by petitioners upon considering the grievance raised in detail were disposed of with certain observation and direction taking note of Clause-14 of the tri partite agreement. In its order the Court has considered the facts and issue to be considered and decided in clear terms and thereafter the case was referred to the Collector and further direction is issued to the Collector to adjudicate the issue after the evidence is adduced. The Collector considered the case. However, the order dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure C-3) is passed without complying with the observation and direction issued by the Court and hence has committed contempt of the order. He also contended that if the Court comes to the conclusion that there is willful disobedience of the order, the respondent-Collector be directed to rehear the reference and pass order(s) afresh. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Court in Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India and others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 273. 4. Learned counsel for respondent vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioners and would submit that the respondent keeping in mind the directions issued in the writ petitions has registered the case, initiated the proceedings in terms of Clause-14 of the Agreement of Arbitration, giving opportunity of hearing and considering the documents placed by the parties before it has passed the order rejecting the application under Clause-14 of the Agreement. There is no pleading of willful disobedience of the order. He contended that the ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner of the 5 / 9 procedure adopted by the contemnor of calling of an order from Dhamtari and based on that the order only arbitration proceeding was concluded, in the facts is not correct. He contended that the discussion made in the order by the respondent of order passed in Dhamtari dealing with an application filed under the same clause of the arbitration agreement with that person is only because the procedure of dealing with the facts and reply about the shortage of paddy is to be considered all over the State in Chhattisgarh under the same directives, guidelines etc. He contended that from the order, it is appearing that the petitioners-Societies had submitted all the relevant documents as also the second party and thereafter the order is passed considering the same, hence, it cannot be said that there is willful disobedience of the order of the High Court. He referred to certain paragraphs of the order passed by the Collector, Gariyaband. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed. 6. These contempt petitions are filed alleging willful disobedience of the order passed by respondent. For punishing a person under Contempt of Courts Act, proof of willful disobedience is sine quo non and not the erroneous decision from the procedure adopted by the authority. 7. Operative portion of the order, subject matter of the contempt is extracted below for ready reference. “11. The submissions of the petitioners and the respondents would show as on date that the dispute arisen about the performance of the agreement is quite logical that if the paddy was not transferred because of the fault of Marketing Federation and caused loss and further loss by termite, mice etc it cannot be pass on to 6 / 9 head of the petitioners. The submission of the petitioners that in absence of the DO/TO the paddy could not be transferred is also required to be examined to finalize the liability. All these issue are required to be adjudicated at the same time the petitioners cannot be driven to a corner by arm twisting method to lodge FIR for any loss which might have been caused. Therefore, under the facts of this case, to arrive at the finding of fact about failure of performance of agreement on either part of the party i.e. procurement centre or State Marketing Federation as per Clause 14 the issue is refereed to the Collector of the particular district. The Collector shall adjudicate the issue after the evidence is adduced about the non performance of part of the contract by either of the parties and shall thereafter decide it accordingly. The petitioner shall be at liberty to invoke clause 14 i.e. Arbitration Clause along with the memo of their claim for the years 2019-20, 2020-21 within a period of 2 weeks and the same shall be concluded with a reasonable time. The petitioners shall also be entitled to file any interim prayer in the circumstances of this case to claim interim due or any other relief to arrest further loss of paddy.” 8. In the aforementioned order, after making certain observation, the Collector was directed to adjudicate the issue after evidence is adduced about the non performance of the part of the contract. The direction which is issued to the Collector is to adjudicate the issue. 9. Undisputedly, according to direction issued by the Court, proceedings were initiated by the respondent-Collector and on 26.05.2022 the proceeding was closed by detailed order. In the order-sheet which is recorded by the Collector forming part of the reply submitted by respondent would show that on 12.05.2022, petitioners appeared through advocate and other side also appeared. Petitioners submitted documents and had prayed for time for argument. On next date, 17.05.2022, written arguments was submitted by the petitioners, on that date also appeared through advocate. From the proceedings 7 / 9 recorded by the Collector, it is apparent that the petitioners on the date fixed had submitted documents in their support and had further sought time to make argument, which was accepted and granted and further written submission/ written arguments were also submitted. Petitioners appeared along with advocate on both the date of hearing. 10. In the above facts of the case, it is to be considered as to whether the decision is taken without recording oral evidence, will in itself, can be considered to be a willful disobedience on the part of Collector when other directions issued by the Court have been complied with of deciding the grievance raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions/ petitioners in these contempt petitions. The evidence can be oral and documentary evidence. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and others vs. P. Ravi Kumar and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3681 while considering “wilful disobedience” has observed that knowledge of having acted in disregard to an order is sine qua non for being proceeded with if there is a deliberate, conscience and intentional act then the jurisdiction can be clutched. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, reported in (2003) 11 SCC 1 considered the concept of wilful disobedience and observed that “Wilful” means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. 8 / 9 13. In J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291 Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the act of preparing erroneous seniority list to be the wilful violation of the order, has observed that, preparation of seniority list may be wrong or may be right or not or may not be in conformity with the direction. But that would a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved parties to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be wilful violation of the order. 14. If the facts of present case are to be considered in light of the aforementioned decisions, it is apparent that in the writ petitions direction was issued to the Collector to adjudicate the issue after the evidence is adduced. The Collector has adjudicated upon the issue wherein the petitioners appeared before the Collector along with advocate, submitted documents in support of the reference and thereafter had taken time to make arguments. The Collector after accepting the documents and hearing the arguments (considering written arguments) has passed the order. 15. In the above facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, it cannot be said that, not following some of the observation is with ill intention deliberately. Petitioners can say and challenge the order passed by the Collector pursuant to directions issued in the writ petitions, stating it to be erroneous and contrary to law. It will be a fresh cause of action for the petitioners. 16. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the specific direction which was issued in the order of adjudicating the issue in reference has been complied with. Petitioners were granted 9 / 9 opportunity to submit documents, their argument was heard and also their written arguments were also considered. 17. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any good ground to continue with these contempt petitions any further. Accordingly, contempt proceedings initiated against respondents is dropped, notice issued to respondents are discharged and the contempt petitions are closed. 18. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners submits that if this Court is of the view that there is no wilful and deliberate disobedience on the part of respondent, petitioners may be granted liberty to challenge the order/ decision of the Collector, in accordance with law. 19. Considering that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing these contempt petitions after passing of order and according to the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners on the query being put, that the order passed by the Collector has not been challenged because of pendency of contempt petitions, petitioners will be at liberty to challenge the order dated 26.05.2022 passed in the proceedings drawn by the Collector under Clause-14 of the agreement in accordance with law, if they so desire. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE