{ 1 } S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT WRIT PETITION NO.173/2008. (DEVENDRA SINGH VS. K.K. PATHAK) DATE OF ORDER : 18.09.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Jog Singh for Mr. K.K. Shah for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Bhati for the respondents. This petition for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents is preferred alleging deliberate and willful non-compliance of the directions given by this Court on 04.04.2008 in SBCWP No.5682/2003 (Devendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and others). It is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that in an appeal giving challenge to the order dated 04.04.2008, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has already issued notices. Notices have also been issued on the stay application. This fact is not denied by learned counsel for the petitioner. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. & Anr. v. Sachidanand Dass & Anr., reported in 1995 Supp(4) SCC 465, held as follows:- { 2 } “4.Before the High Court, appellants urged that before any contempt proceedings could be initiated, it was necessary and appropriate for the Division Bench to examine the prayer for stay, or else, the appeal itself might become infructuous. This did not commend itself to the High Court which sought to proceed with the contempt first. We are afraid, the course adopted by the High Court does not commend itself as proper. If, without considering the prayer for stay, obedience to the Single Judge's order was insisted upon at the pain of committal for contempt, the appellants may find, as has now happened, the very purpose of appeal and the prayer for interlocutory stay infructuous. It is true that a mere filing of an appeal and an application for stay do not by themselves absolve the appellants from obeying the order under appeal and that any compliance with the learned Single Judge's order would be subject to the final result of the appeal. But then the changes brought about in the interregnum in obedience of the order under appeal might themselves be a cause and source of prejudice. Wherever the order whose disobedience is complained about is appealed against and stay of its operation is pending before the Court, it will be appropriate to take up for consideration the prayer for stay either earlier or at least simultaneously with the complaint for contempt. To keep the prayer for stay stand-by and to insist upon proceedings with the complaint for contempt might in many conceivable cases, as here, cause serious prejudice. This is the view taken in State of J & K v. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan.” { 3 } In view of whatever said above and looking to the fact that a Division Bench of this Court has already issued notices for appeal and also on stay application, I do not consider it appropriate to proceed against the respondents under Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971. The contempt petition, therefore, is dismissed, rule issued is discharged. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/