1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER DB Civil Contempt Petition No. 300/2010 in DB Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 4820/2003 and DB Civil Review Petition No. 54/2004 Chiranji Lal Saini Vs Smt Kiran Soni Gupta & ors 31.03.2010 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr Justice MN Bhandari Mr Rajendra Prasad - for petitioner BY THE COURT: This contempt petition has been filed alleging non- compliance of the order passed by this court on 25.2.2004 as modified in the review petition on 13.8.2004. It is submitted that pursuant to directions of this court Divisional Commissioner was under an obligation to supervise functioning of the committees (respondents No.3 and 4 to the writ petition) and to further scrutinise sale and purchase of the property and repair works of the temple. It is alleged that despite the recommendation made to the Divisional Commissioner pursuance to the order of this court no further action has been 2 taken in the matter and now at this stage order has been passed on 22.5.2009 causing disobedience of this court's order. It is further alleged that Divisional Commissioner was under an obligation to submit report within a period of two months however no such compliance report has been filed. We have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Perusal of the order shows that the Divisional Commissioner was directed to supervise functioning of the Committees and also to scrutinise sale and purchase of properties and repair works of temple undertaken by the Committees. Aforesaid order was passed on 13.8.2004. A period of two months was given for submission of compliance report by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur and the matter was directed to be listed on 11.10.2004 for perusal of compliance report. The grievance of petitioner is that compliance report had not been submitted by the Divisional Commissioner before this court within the aforesaid period or thereafter. During course of arguments learned counsel for petitioner was asked as to whether non-petitioner No.1 was the Divisional Commissioner in the year 2004 or even in the year 3 2005, it was fairly conceded that she was not the Divisional Commissioner who was required to submit compliance report and that she was posted elsewhere. On the issue of limitation it is submitted that it will not come in the way of petitioner because as per directions of this court it is a continuous requirement to submit compliance report. Perusal of the order does not show any such directions as the compliance report was required to be submitted only once. Thus we cannot accept the argument of learned counsel for petitioner that so far as non-petitioner No.1 is concerned, she has committed contempt of this court's order. So far as non-petitioners No.2 and 3 are concerned, no directions were passed for taking any action in the matter as would be clear from the order itself. It has not been clarified by learned counsel for petitioner as to how they have been arrayed in this contempt petition when no directions were given to them to comply. In view of aforesaid, we cannot accept the contempt petition wherein respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been impleaded without showing any directions to them to comply with. The matter was considered in the light of order of this 4 court. The Divisional Commissioner was ordered to supervise functioning of Committees and to scrutinise sale and purchase of properties and repair works of temple undertaken by the Committees. The Divisional Commissioner was to submit compliance report within two months and the matter was directed to be listed on 11.10.2004 for perusal of compliance report. The allegation is that follow up action has not been taken up though admitted that Divisional Commissioner submitted the report but the report is annulled by the oder dated 22.5.2009. If that is so, the Divisional Commissioner is not responsible rather as per directions of this court necessary report was made and if some order has been passed by another authority, petitioner was at liberty to challenge it appropriately. In view of aforesaid, no case has been made out to show that any of the respondents have committed contempt of court's order. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. Petitioner would however be at liberty to take up the action for challenge before appropriate forum, if so choses. (MN Bhandari) J (Jagdish Bhalla) CJ bnsharma