Cont. Cas.(C) 378/2008 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT. CAS(C) No.378/2008 % Date of Decision : 05th May, 2009 SEEMA SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate versus S.S.AGRAWAL & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 to 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral) 1. Present contempt petition has been filed under Sections 11 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging wilful disobedience by respondents of judgment dated March 20, 2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.8923/2007 whereby respondents were directed in accordance with Clause 9(d) of Ordinance X to hold an on the spot examination of petitioner for Masters of Pharmacy (Quality Assurance) first year course. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Punjeet Taneja has contended that despite aforesaid categorical direction of this Court, respondents did not hold an on the spot examination and the petitioner ultimately had to Cont. Cas.(C) 378/2008 Page 2 of 4 appear in the regular annual examination held in July-August, 2008 along with other regular students. Mr. Puneet Taneja, learned counsel for petitioner stated that in the process, petitioner lost one academic year. 3. University of Delhi, who had to implement and execute the aforesaid direction of this Court, has filed a detailed affidavit in which it has averred as under: “4. It is stated that the judgment of this Hon‟ble Court dated 20.3.2008 was received by the University authorities on 10.4.2008. After examining the same and taking necessary approval etc. for its implementation, the University authorities vide communication dated 23.4.2008, requested the Head, Department of Pharmacy to convene Committee of courses and studies meeting for finalization and appointment of examiners for conducting examination of Master of Pharmacy Ist year Course for the petitioner as a special case. It is submitted that the Master of Pharmacy Ist year course examination comprises of both theory and practical papers. While evaluation of theory papers is done by the concerned paper setters, the practical examination is conducted by a board of examiners half the members of which are external examinees from other Universities. 5. It is submitted that the Head, Department of Pharmacy vide communication dated 5.5.2008, recommended names of the Examiners suitable for setting up of question paper for different subjects of Master of Pharmacy Ist year course. It is stated that the university authorities immediately issued necessary communications to each of the Examiners. Since there was a delay in submission of question papers, reminders etc. were also sent by the University authorities to each of the Examiners telegraphically beside telephone calls as most of them are from outside Delhi. The details of the written/telephonic reminders issued by the University authorities to each External Examiners are stated as under: Paper Subject Reminders for question paper sent on I Modern Pharma Analytical Tech. & Stats. 15th & 30th May & 09th July, 2008 II Quality Assurance-I 15th May, 2008 Cont. Cas.(C) 378/2008 Page 3 of 4 (Quality Management) III Quality Assurance-II (Product Development) 15th, 30th May, & 09th July, 2008 IV Quality Assurance-III Packaging 15th & 30th May, 2008 V Quality Assurance-IV (Biological Evaluation) 15th, 30th May, 2008 6. The Head, Department of Pharmacy was duly informed with request to use his good offices to get the question papers urgently. It is submitted that since the External Examiners failed to submit the question papers within a reasonable time and that the annual examinations of the Ist year Master of Pharmacy course were already scheduled to be held in July/August, 2008, taking into account the totality of circumstances, it was resolved by the University authorities that it would be appropriate and in the interest of the petitioner that she appears in the Master of Pharmacy Ist year course examination along with other regular students and the annual examination for M. Pharma, Ist year was held on 04th August 2008.” 4. It is well settled that a person can be punished under Contempt of Courts Act only if he or she wilfully disobeys any judgment, decree, direction, order or writ or wilfully breaches an undertaking given to a Court. Thus, to punish an individual under Contempt of Courts Act not only there has to be a disobedience of judgment/order or breach of an undertaking but the same has also to be wilful. The expression „wilful‟ has been defined in Black‟s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition as, ”proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary; knowingly; deliberate. Intending the result which actually comes to pass; designed; intentional; purposeful; not accidental or involuntary.” Import of the word „wilful‟ was considered by Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Ors. v. Md. Illiyas reported in (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 275 wherein it was held, “An act is said to be “wilful” if it is intentional, Cont. Cas.(C) 378/2008 Page 4 of 4 conscious and deliberate.” 5. From the facts stated in counter affidavit, it is apparent that officials of University of Delhi had tried their best to comply with directions of this Court but it was only on account of failure of external examiners to prepare and submit a question paper within reasonable time that an on the spot examination of petitioner for the aforesaid course could not be conducted. 6. In the present case, I find that though there has been disobedience/breach of judgment dated 20th March, 2008, but the same is not wilful or deliberate. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there were practical difficulties beyond the control of respondents and accordingly an on the spot examination of petitioner for the aforesaid course could not be conducted. 7. Consequently, I hold respondents not guilty of having committed contempt of this Court‟s judgment dated 20th March, 2008, but in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct respondent No.3 to make payment of costs of present petition to petitioner which are assessed at Rs.5,000/-. I further direct respondent No.3 to immediately put in place a procedure so that in future an on the spot examination can be conducted at a short notice. The cost of Rs.25,000/- lying deposited in this Court shall be released to petitioner upon petitioner being identified by her counsel. With aforesaid observations, present petition is disposed of. MANMOHAN,J MAY 05, 2009 js