IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2009. Date of decision: 26 . 5. 2010 Ramesh Chander Ladohia ….Appellant Versus Sh. R.P. Agarwal and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?No For the Appellant: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala,, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is appellant. The contempt application was filed with a grievance that the judgment in CWP No. 1247 of 2005 had not been complied with in letter and spirit and that there is willful disobedience of the judgment. The learned Single Judge before whom, the contempt case was posted, passed a short order in the following terms:- “It is evident from the stand taken by the respondents in their reply that the judgment - 2 - dated 7th May, 2008 has been implemented in letter and spirit. In view of these facts, the notice is discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of.” 2. It is the submission of the appellant that the judgment has not been complied with and that there is willful disobedience and hence the respondents are liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. We are afraid having regard to the disputed questions involved in the case, it cannot be said that there is willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. Therefore, an action for contempt may not lie. At the same time, we are of the view that the observations in the order in contempt petition might stand in the way of the petitioner for pursuing his remedy of execution. What was required in the contempt petition is only to see whether there is contemptuous conduct on the part of the respondents in disobeying the orders of the Court. That certainly is not there and the matter should have been left at that stage. But apparently, the observations of learned Single Judge that the judgment has been complied with in letter and spirit will certainly stand in the way of the petitioner for pursuing his grievance in an appropriate proceeding other than the contempt proceedings. Therefore, to that extent, the order in appeal requires modification. Ordered accordingly, with a further clarification that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue his grievance regarding eligible benefits flowing out of - 3 - the judgment in the Civil Writ petition in appropriate proceedings. The appeal is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice Surinder Singh), May 26,2010 Judge (cm)