ADVERTISEMENT
Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Ram Krishna Jayara vs Sri Sanjay Kumar Pathak And Others on 15 July, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI RAKESH THAPLIYAL.
Reserved on: 03.06.2026
Delivered on: 15.07.2026
Contempt Petition No. 213 of 2026
M/s Ram Krishna Jayara ......Petitioner
Vs.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Pathak and others ......Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Raizada, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S.
Chauhan, learned counsel.
(Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
1. The instant contempt petition has been moved by the
petitioner for initiation of proceeding against the
respondent/contemnor under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971
for wilful disobedience of the judgment and order passed by the
Writ Court dated 26.02.2026 in WPMB No. 534 of 2024, M/s Ram
Krishna Jayara vs. State of Uttarakhand & others.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner participated
in a tender process flouted by the department, in which the
petitioner was disqualified in the technical evaluation round.
Aggrieved by the exclusion, the petitioner approached the Writ
Court and preferred WPMB No. 534 of 2024. The writ petition
was remained pending for one and half year and during this
period the entire bidding process was put on hold and
subsequently the Writ Court allowed the writ petition on
26.02.2026 and respondents were directed to include the bid of
the petitioner's firm in the financial round and proceed in
accordance with law. On close scrutiny of the judgment passed
by the Writ Court, the Writ Court was of the view that the
petitioner was illegally disqualified.
2
3. Thereafter, instant contempt petition is moved for non-
compliance of the direction of the Writ Court, since, the
respondent again put on hold the entire bidding process on the
ground that some of the bidders are not agreeable to extend their
bid validity period.
4. On 12.05.2026, the respondent/contemnor -the Chief
Engineer was directed to join the proceeding through V.C. on
14.05.2026, and in compliance thereof Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
the Chief Engineer joined the proceeding and after hearing the
submission of Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the
respondent/contemnor as well as submission of Mr. Sanjay
Kumar Pathak, the following charge was framed:-
"Whether the action of the respondent contemnor for not opening
the financial bid on the scheduled date amounts to contempt of
Court and what action can be taken on wilfully disobeying the
order of the court."
A week's time was given to file response on the aforesaid
charge and in compliance thereof response has been filed.
5. Now the issue for consideration before this Court in this
contempt petition is whether putting the tender process on hold
without opening the financial bid on the ground that the other
bidders refused to extend their bid validity period and now only
the petitioner has been left out to be a single bidder and such
financial bid cannot be opened constitutes wilful circumvention
and disobedience of the directions of Writ Court.
The another issue is whether the plea of subsequent
development that the other bidders are not extending their bid
validity period will frustrate the tender process due to passage of
time, amounts disobedience of the order of the Writ Court.
3
6. The issue of subsequent development has been discussed
by this Court in its order dated 12.05.2026 and 14.05.2026. On
03.06.2026 , Mr. Raizada, learned Senior Advocate who appears
for the respondent/contemnor submits that the judgment of the
Writ Court need not to be complied with in view of the
subsequent development. In support of such submission he
placed reliance to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Jharkhand and others vs. CWE-Soma
Consortium, (2016) 14 SCC 172 as well as the another decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs.
Union of India and other (2012) 1 SCC 273.
7. In response to such submission, Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the submission as
advanced by Mr. Raizada is completely misconceived and the
respondent/contemnor has no business to say that the order of
the Writ Court need not to complied with due to subsequent
development and the submission as made as such are completely
outside the scope of the contempt jurisdiction.
8. Heard rival submission of the learned counsel for the
parties.
9. First of all it should be keep in mind that the law of
contempt jurisdiction is well settled that the order of the Writ
Court cannot be bypassed due to subsequent development and
in a contempt jurisdiction the Contempt Court should check
whether the spirit and letter of the order was obeyed or not.
10. The respondent's plea that only one bidder remains is
nothing but is a situation created by the respondent/contemnor.
4
The petitioner was kept out of in the financial round of bidding
process due to oust in technical round for 18 months which was
subjudice before the Writ Court and when the Writ Court after
dealing with all the relevant aspects directed the respondents to
evaluate all the bidders including the petitioner in the financial
round of tender process then a new plea is taken that now other
bidders are not extending their bid validity period. The argument
of the respondent/contemnor that a single bidder invalidates the
tender process cannot be accepted in a contempt proceeding for
three reasons which are as follows:-
(i) at the time bid was frozen, there were multiple valid bidders
and the exclusion of the petitioner found to be erroneous
pursuant to the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court
dated 26.02.2026 in WPMB No. 534 of 2024.
(ii) Allowing the other bidder to refuse to extend the bid validity
period that too during the pendency of the writ petition as well as
after final verdict of the Writ Court is nothing but an act of
respondent/contemnor to defeat the judgment of the Writ Court
and
(iii) delaying tactics in compliance of the judgment of the Writ
Court in respect of bid is nothing but an attempt to circumvent
the order of the Writ Court by putting on hold the process of
opening of financial bid which is nothing but blatant attempt to
circumvent and neutralize the direction of the Writ Court.
The plea of the respondent that "no competent bidder is
left" is nothing but after thought and this is nothing but in order
to circumvent the order of the Writ Court which falls under the
purview of use as a shield against the finding of the contempt or
to make an attempt to frustrate the contempt proceedings.
11. By placing reliance to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India and
5
other (2012) 1 SCC 273, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that any new development will not give any shelter to the
respondent/contemnor for taking plea that the order of the Writ
Court need not to be complied with.
I perused the judgment. At this juncture certain relevant
paragraphs of this judgment are relevant to examine the principle
of law which guide the exercise of judicial discretion in the
contempt jurisdiction which are as under:-
"16. Now, we would examine certain principles of law which would
normally guide the exercise of judicial discretion in the realm of contempt
jurisdiction. `Contempt' is an extraordinary jurisdiction of the Courts.
Normally, the courts are reluctant to initiate contempt proceedings under
the provisions of the 1971 Act. This jurisdiction, at least suo moto, is
invoked by the courts sparingly and in compelling circumstances, as it is
one of the foremost duty of the courts to ensure compliance of its orders. The
law relating to contempt is primarily dissected into two main heads of
jurisdiction under the Indian Law: (a) Criminal Contempt, and (b) Civil
Contempt. It is now well settled and explained principle under the Indian
contempt jurisdiction that features, ingredients, procedure, attendant
circumstances of the case and the quantum of punishment are the relevant
and deciphering factors.
17. Section 12 of the 1971 Act deals with the contempt of court and its
punishment while Section 15 deals with cognizance of criminal contempt.
Civil contempt would be wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court
or wilful disobedience of any judgment or order of the court, while criminal
contempt would deal with the cases where by words, spoken or written,
signs or any matter or doing of any act which scandalises, prejudices or
interferes, obstructs or even tends to obstruct the due course of any judicial
proceedings, any court and the administration of justice in any other
manner. Under the English Law, the distinction between criminal and civil
contempt is stated to be very little and that too of academic significance.
However, under both the English and Indian Law these are proceedings sui
generis.
19. Under the Indian Law the conduct of the parties, the act of
disobedience and the attendant circumstances are relevant to consider
whether a case would fall under civil contempt or a criminal contempt. For
example, disobedience of an order of a court simplicitor would be civil
contempt but when it is coupled with conduct of the parties which is
contemptuous, prejudicial and is in flagrant violation of the law of the land,
it may be treated as a criminal contempt. Even under the English Law, the
courts have the power to enforce its judgment and orders against the
recalcitrant parties.
20. In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are primarily
concerned with enquiring whether the contemnor is guilty of intentional
and wilful violation of the orders of the court, even to constitute a civil
contempt. Every party to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is
expected to obey the orders of the court in its true spirit and substance.
Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due
dignity for the institution. The Government Departments are no exception
to it. The departments or instrumentalities of the State must act
expeditiously as per orders of the court and if such orders postulate any
schedule, then it must be adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions or
difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court, least that is expected
of the Government Department or its functionaries is to approach the court
6
for extension of time or clarifications, if called for. But, where the party
neither obeys the orders of the court nor approaches the court making
appropriate prayers for extension of time or variation of order, the only
possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the orders of the court.
In other words, it is intentionally not carrying out the orders of the court.
Flagrant violation of the court's orders would reflect the attitude of the
concerned party to undermine the authority of the courts, its dignity and
the administration of justice.
22. Another very important aspect even of the Civil Contempt is, `what
is the attribution of the contemnor?' There may be cases of disobedience
where the respondent commits acts and deeds leading to actual disobedience
of the orders of the court. Such contemnor may flout the orders of the court
openly, intentionally and with no respect for the rule of law. While in some
other cases of civil contempt, disobedience is the consequence or inference of
a dormant or passive behaviour on the part of the contemnor. Such would
be the cases where the contemnor does not take steps and just remains
unmoved by the directions of the court. As such, even in cases where no
positive/active role is directly attributable to a person, still, his passive and
dormant attitude of inaction may result in violation of the orders of the
court and may render him liable for an action of contempt.
23. It is not the offence of contempt which gets altered by a
passive/negative or an active/positive behaviour of a contemnor but at best,
it can be a relevant consideration for imposition of punishment, wherever
the contemnor is found guilty of contempt of court.
24. With reference to Government officers, this Court in the case
of E.T. Sunup v. Canss Employees Assoc.. ] took the view that it has become
a tendency with the Government officers to somehow or the other
circumvent the orders of the Court by taking recourse to one justification or
the other even if ex-facie they are unsustainable. The tendency of
undermining the court orders cannot be countenanced. Deprecating
practice of undue delay in compliance with the orders of the court, this
Court again in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. observed
: (SCC p. 311, paras 8-9)
".....clear lapse on the part of NCT and Municipal
Corporation. Even if there was not deliberate or wilful disregard for
the court orders, there has clearly been a lackadaisical attitude and
approach towards them. Though no further action in this matter
need be taken for now, but such lethargic attitude if continues may
soon become contumacious."
26. It is also of some relevancy to note that disobedience of court orders
by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and
dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the
court strikes at the very root of rule of law on which the judicial system
rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is
the guardian of the rule of law. If the Judiciary is to perform its duties and
functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are
sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be
respected and protected at all costs (refer T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad's
case SCC p. 6,para 5).The proceedings before the highest court of the land in
a public interest litigation, attain even more significance. These are the
cases which come up for hearing before the court on a grievance raised by
the public at large or public spirited persons. The State itself places matters
before the Court for determination which would fall, statutorily or
otherwise, in the domain of the executive authority.
29. Lethargy, ignorance, official delays and absence of motivation can
hardly be offered as any defence in an action for contempt. Inordinate delay
in complying with the orders of the courts has also received judicial
criticism. It is inappropriate for the parties concerned to keep the execution
7
of the court's orders in abeyance for an inordinate period. Inaction or even
dormant behaviour by the officers in highest echelons in the hierarchy of the
Government in complying with the directions/orders of this Court certainly
amounts to disobedience. Inordinate delay of years in complying with the
orders of the court or in complying with the directed stipulations within the
prescribed time, has been viewed by this Court seriously and held to be the
contempt of court, as it undermines the dignity of the court. Reference in
this regard can be made to Maniyeri Madhavan v. Inspector of Police,
Cannanore [AIR 1993 SC 356] and Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak
Ghosh and Ors. [(2002) 4 SCC 21]. Even a lackadaisical attitude, which
itself may not be deliberate or wilful, have not been held to be a sufficient
ground of defence in a contempt proceeding. Obviously, the purpose is to
ensure compliance of the orders of the court at the earliest and within
stipulated period."
12. Apart from this it is settled principle of law that the Court
while exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned
with the question of contemptuous conduct of the party who is
alleged to have committed default in compliance with the
direction of the Writ Court. If there was an ambiguity in the
order, it is for the party concerned to approach to higher court if
according to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question
is necessarily to be adopted before the Higher Court.
The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take
upon itself power to decide the subject matter of petition which
has already been decided in any manner nor to dealt with by the
Writ Court while passing the order.
If the plea of respondent/contemnor is accepted at this
stage that due to some new development there is no need to
comply with the judgment then it amounts to frustrate the order
of the Writ Court as well as to frustrate the contempt proceeding
and in such an eventuality this Court is of the view that if there is
any impossibility to obey the order then it has been assailed for
correctness of the judgment before the Higher Court.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prithawi Nath Ram
vs. State of Jharkhand and others (2004) 7 SCC 261 observed that
8
the court dealing with application against alleged non-
compliance in a contempt jurisdiction cannot examine rightness
or wrongness of the order of the Writ Court nor can it add or
delete any direction and whether the order is wrong or against
the rules or impracticable or not feasible this cannot be looked
into in the contempt jurisdiction. The order is right or wrong in
any eventuality has to be obeyed and disobedience thereof would
render the party liable for contempt.
The certain relevant paragraphs of the judgment as
aforesaid are reproduced herein as under:-
"5. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really
concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received
its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a
Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been
assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the earlier
decision. A similar view was taken in K.G. Derasari and Anr. V. Union of
India and Ors.. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily
concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is
alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the
judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order,
it is for the concerned party to approach the higher Court if according to
him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be
agitated before the higher Court. The Court exercising contempt
jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings
in a manner not dealt with by the Court passing the judgment or
order. Though strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the State of
Bihar on a three-Judge Bench decision in Niaz Mohammad and Ors. v.
State of Haryana and Ors., we find that the same has no application to the
facts of the present case. In that case the question arose about the
impossibility to obey the order. If that was the stand of the State, the least it
could have done was to assail correctness of the judgment before the higher
Court. State took diametrically opposite stands before this Court. One was
that there was no specific direction to do anything in particular and, second
was what was required to be done has been done. If what was to be done has
been done, it cannot certainly be said that there was impossibility to carry
out the orders. In any event, the High Court has not recorded a finding that
the direction given earlier was impossible to be carried out or that the
direction given has been complied with.
6. On the question of impossibility to carry out the direction, the
views expressed in T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan need to be noted. It
was held that when the claim inter se had been adjudicated and had attained
finality, it is not open to the respondent to go behind the orders and
truncate the effect thereof by hovering over the rules to get round the result,
to legitimize legal alibi to circumvent the order passed by a Court.
7. In Mohd. Iqbal Khanday v. Abdul Majid Rather it was held that if a
party is aggrieved by the order, he should take prompt steps to invoke
appellate proceedings and cannot ignore the order and plead about the
difficulties of implementation at the time contempt proceedings are
initiated.
9
8. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its
opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither
practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the Court that
passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or
wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or
wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would
render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for
contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of
which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been
done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It
cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction
or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while
dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The
same would be impermissible and indefensible. In that view of the matter,
the order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh
consideration. It shall deal with the application in its proper perspective in
accordance with law afresh. We make it clear that we have not expressed
any opinion regarding acceptability or otherwise of the application for
initiation of contempt proceedings."
14. So far as judgment as relied upon by Mr. Raizada, learned
Senior Advocate particularly in the case of State of Jharkhand
(supra) is concerned, the said judgment is nothing to do with the
issue in hand in this contempt proceeding. This Court is
exercising the contempt jurisdiction and under the contempt
jurisdiction the Contempt Court should only examine whether
the direction of the writ Court is complied with in letter and spirit
and there is no scope of disobeying the order of the Writ Court
due to any subsequent development, therefore, the judgment as
relied upon by Mr. Raizada has no relevance to the issue in hand.
So far as another judgment is concerned, i.e. Maninderjit
Singh Bitta (supra) this Court took note of this judgment earlier
also which is reflected from the previous order dated 12.05.2026.
15. After considering the rival submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and in view of the discussion as above, this
Court finds that the respondent/contemnor are guilty of wilful
disobedience of the order of the Writ Court dated 26.02.2026
passed in WPMB No. 534 of 2024, M/s Ram Krishan Jayara vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others. The attempt of the
respondent/contemnor to put the process of financial bid on hold
on the plea that the other bidders have refused to extend their bid
10
validity period and the petitioner is now left out to be a single
bidder therefore his financial bid cannot be opened is nothing but
after thought and creation of such a situation by the
respondent/contemnor and this Court comes to the conclusion
that with some oblique motive the respondent/contemnor are
making an attempt to circumvent the order of the Writ Court.
16. In such view of the matter, following directions are being
issued:-
The respondents are directed to strictly comply the
order of the Writ Court dated 26.02.2026 passed in WPMB
No. 534 of 2024, M/s Ram Krishan Jayara vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others within ten days from today and
submit compliance report on the next date.
If the respondents fail to comply the directions as
aforesaid within the stipulated period as above, the
respondent/contemnor shall appear personally before this
Court on the next date fixed to receive sentence under the
provision of Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
17. Put up this matter on 27.07.2026 before this Bench.
__________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Parul
SPONSORED
