2026:HHC:4742 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 509 of 2023 Decided on: February 27 , 2026 Saraswati Vidya Mandir Samiti ...Petitioner Versus Lalit Sharma & Anr. ...Respondents Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Sh. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vishwadep Sharma, Addl. Advocate General for respondent No. 2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner alleges violation of order dated 24.03.2023 passed in CMP No. 18 of 2023 in CWP No. 1439 of 2019 titled as Lalit Sharma & Anr. vs. The Secretary (Cooperation) to the Government of Himachal Pradeh & Ors. Following operative directions were issued in the aforesaid order:- 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2026:HHC:4742 2 “3. Now that the elections appear to have been held, the petitioners have no business much less authority to retain the record of the society. They are directed to hand over the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala within one week from today. The applicant/respondent No. 3 shall supply list of the records so retained by the petitioners to facilitate the handing over of the same. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioners fail to hand over the records that too without any justifiable or plausible reason within the aforesaid time, then in addition to any other action that may be taken against the petitioners, they shall be liable to be prosecuted and punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act. The application stands disposed of.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties & considered the case file. The specific violation projected by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of above order, present petitioner was to be supplied list of records of Society so retained by the petitioners in the above case with further direction that in case the petitioners therein failed to hand over the records without any justifiable or plausible reason within the given time, then in addition to any other action that may be taken against them, they shall also be liable to be prosecuted and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present respondent No. 1 was petitioner No. 1 in the aforesaid case whereas School 2026:HHC:4742 3 Management Committee Sarswati Vidya Mandir, Senior Secondary School Dehra, District Kangra, was petitioner No. 2 (not a party herein). Learned counsel submitted that respondent No. 1 has only provided selective record which is irrelevant and pertains to recent years, whereas, respondent No. 1 was to hand over the records more particularly for the years 2011-2012 etc. These allegations have been disputed by the respondents. According to them, whatever record was in their possession has been handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner acknowledges receipt of some record but asserts that complete record more particularly the relevant record has not been handed over to him. 3. The order alleged to have been violated does not direct handing over of any specific document by respondent No.1 to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 has in fact returned record to the petitioner. According to the petitioner complete and relevant record has not been returned to it. The stand taken by respondent No. 1 is that whatever record was available has been handed over to respondent No. 2 for its supply to respondent No. 1. In fact stand of respondent No. 1 is that till date petitioner has not even supplied any list of record required by it to respondent No. 1. That it was only during hearing of this petition that such list was furnished. Be that as it may, the case file reflects 2026:HHC:4742 4 handing over of record by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2. Stand of respondent No. 2 is that whatever record was passed on to it by respondent No. 1 has in turn been handed over to the petitioner. 4. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to C. Elumalai & Ors. vs. A.G.L. Irudayaraj & Anr.2, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the issue of contempt in light of several key precedents, particularly focusing on the requirement of “wilful disobedience” for holding a party guilty of civil contempt. The principles set out in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Godha & Ors.3 were relied upon where “wilful” was defined as an act or omission done voluntarily and intentionally, with a specific intent to disobey or disregard the law, signifying a deliberate action with evil intent or bad motive. The Court reiterated that wilful disobedience must be established beyond doubt, and mere non-compliance or misunderstanding of an order is not sufficient to constitute contempt. Decision in Kapildeo Prasad Sah vs. State of Bihar4 was also referred to emphasize that contempt powers should be exercised only when there is clear, deliberate, or contumacious disobedience, and that negligence or carelessness may sometimes amount to 2 (2009) 4 SCC 213 3 (2003) 11 SCC 1 4 (1999) 7 SCC 569 2026:HHC:4742 5 contempt, but the threshold remains high. Anil Ratan Sarkar vs. Hirak Ghosh5 was also cited, highlighting that an unambiguous order must be obeyed and that misunderstanding is not a valid defence; the power to punish for contempt must be used sparingly and only when intentional violation is established. The decision underscores that contempt jurisdiction is a drastic power, to be used only to uphold the authority of the courts and the rule of law, and not for every technical or accidental breach. In Abhishek Kumar Singh vs. G. Pattanaik & Ors.6, Hon’ble Apex Court addressed the issue of contempt in the context of alleged non-compliance with its previous orders. The legal principle reaffirmed was that contempt action can only be sustained where there is clear, wilful disobedience of a court order. It was emphasized that mere non-compliance, absent a deliberate or intentional act to defy the court order, does not amount to contempt. In Prithawi Nath Ram vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.7, Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified the limited scope of contempt proceedings. That when dealing with a contempt application, the primary concern is whether the earlier judgment or order, having attained finality, has been complied with. The Court cannot revisit or 5 (2002) 4 SCC 21 6 (2021) 7 SCC 613 7 (2004) 7 SCC 261 2026:HHC:4742 6 question the correctness of that earlier decision, nor can it take a different view than what was already decided. If a party believes the order is incorrect or impossible to implement, the proper course is to approach the appellate or reviewing court, not to raise such issues during contempt proceedings. The contempt jurisdiction is confined to examining alleged non-compliance or contumacious conduct; it cannot be used to modify, add to, or delete directions from the original order, as that would amount to exercising review jurisdiction, which is impermissible in contempt cases. 5. In the given facts & circumstances and keeping in view nature of violation alleged read with the order alleged to have been violated, it cannot be said that respondents have committed contempt of the directions issued by this Court. Further, the order alleged to have been violated gives liberty to the petitioner to seek any other action that may be available to it in law in the given facts & circumstances. With the above observations, the contempt petition to stand dismissed. Notices issues to the respondents are discharged. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge February 27 , 2026 (PK)