IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC No. 502 of 2011 Decided on: 30th November, 2011. Dhani Ram ......Petitioner Vs. Ratish Chauhan & Ors. ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG. ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) While disposing of the RSA No. 74 of 2002, learned Single Judge at paragraph 8 observed as follows:- “8. In these circumstances, I do not see how such plea can be raised but in any event on the question of law it is settled that eviction will follow compliance of due process of law. Appeal disposed of. No order as to costs.” 2. According to the petitioner, the respondents have now taken steps to dispossess the petitioner without due process of law. It may be a wrong order passed by the competent authority. But that does not mean that it is willful disobedience of any direction issued to that authority to pass an order in a particular manner. The officers can be proceeded under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for civil contempt only in case there is willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other orders of a Court when there is breach of an undertaking given to a Court. All wrong orders do not attract civil contempt. Steps initiated against the petitioner, if they are otherwise bad in law, are to be challenged in appropriate proceedings. Therefore, the COPC is dismissed without prejudice the liberty to the petitioner to take recourse appropriate remedy open to him under law. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 30th November, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (vs/krs) Judge. 2