IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Contempt Application No. 87 of 2005 M/s Harish Chandra Punera … Applicants Vs T.J. Nihlani … Opp. Party Sri D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondent Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, the petitioner has prayed for taking the cognizance under the Contempt of Court Act against the respondent – T.J. Nihalani, Executive Engineer and to punish him for willful and deliberate disobedience of the Court’s order dated 26.04.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 219 (M/B) of 2005, M/s Harish Kumar Punera Vs Union of India & another. 2. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.04.2005 has recorded the findings, which is quoted below:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already applied for tender forms and the respondents may be directed to issue tender forms to the petitioner and allow him to submit the tender. Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that if the petitioner has applied for tender forms within time pursuant to the above-mentioned press notice and if the above-mentioned letter dated 23rd April, 2005 has been received by the second respondent Executive Engineer, his application for tender form will be considered treating him as a contractor included in the approved list of M.E.S. This submission of the learned Assistant Solicitor General also is recorded. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent and in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, the 2 respondent has categorically averred that the petitioner in fact had not come to the Office of the answering deponent on 21.04.2005, but he met the deponent on 22.04.2005 in the afternoon. The deponent has directed the petitioner to come in the Office on 23.04.2005 in order to submit the tender. It has been averred that the petitioner instead of coming to the Office in person, in order to submit the tender, sent the application through courier. However, this courier was received in the Office of the deponent on 23.04.2005, but it was without petitioner’s name, tender cost and earnest money. The deponent in the counter affidavit has filed the copy of the letter dated 23.04.2005 as annexure No. CA-1. 4. However, in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, the averments made in the paragraph – 5 of the counter affidavit have been admitted. 5. From the aforesaid material, it is quite clear that the petitioner himself was negligent in complying the order passed by this Court. It cannot be said that the respondent has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order passed by this Court. The petitioner has to suffer on account of his own negligence and I am of the view that the contempt petition being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. The notices issued against the respondent are hereby discharged. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 14.10.2008 ASWAL