IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 304 of 2006 Smt. Kalpana Pathak … Petitioner Vs Sri Manoj Chandran & others … Respondents Sri A.D. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner Sri N.P. Shah, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act has been filed by the petitioner for summoning the respondents and punishing them for willfully disobedience and flouting the order dated 21.12.2004 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1269 (M/S) of 2004, Smt. Kalmana Pathak Vs The State of Uttaranchal & others. 2. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2004 passed the following order. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment is quoted below:- “Meanwhile respondent No. 3 and its officers and agents are directed not to interfere with the transport of the manufactured goods of M/s Shyahi Devi Dhoop Udhyog, Village & Post Shitlakhet, District Almora.” 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent – Divisional Forest Officer, Almora and in paragraph 5 of the same, it has been stated that Karan Singh Bisht, Manoj Singh Bisht and Balam Singh Bisht were arrested by the Forest Official at Shitlakhet while cutting the pine trees to remove the outer bark including the torch wood from the standing pine trees. It has further been stated that these persons were fined Rs. 1,000/- each and the material taken from their custody was also seized. The statements of these three witnesses have been annexed along with the counter affidavit as CA Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The statement of these persons indicate that these persons cut the outer bark of the tree and these items were to be taken for sale to M/s Kalpana Dhoop Udyog Sihitlakhet, District Almora. 4. In view of the reasons, it is quite clear that the aforesaid three persons were carrying the forest goods and they were rightly arrested by the Forest Official. However, I do not find any willful disobedience of the order dated 21.12.2004 passed by this Court as there is a direction in the order passed by this Court that the respondents and its officers shall not interfere with the transport of the manufactured goods. The recovery of the outer bark of the pine trees is not a manufactured goods. Therefore, to my mind the respondents have not committed any contempt of the order passed by this Court. 5. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any justification to continue the proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act against the respondents. 6. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. 7. The notices issued against the respondents are hereby discharged. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 29.04.2009 ASWAL