JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. The present contempt petition was filed under Sections 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, inter-alia, praying for punishing the opposite parties for committing contempt of this Court by not complying with the order dated 25-11-1992 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46686 of 1992 (Gangasagar Rai v. Dy. Director of Education, Gorakhpur and Ors.)
2. By the order dated 02-04-1993, this Court directed the opposite party No. 1 (Mahendra Singh) to comply with the said order dated 25-11-1992, failing which he should personally appear before this Court.
3. By the order dated 30-8-1993 passed on Civil Misc. Application No.----of 1993 (dated 17-8-1993), this Court allowed the impleadment of Shiv Pratap Singh as the opposite party No. 2, and directed for issuance of notice to the said opposite party No 2.
4. In response to the said notice, a counter affidavit sworn on 5th November, 1993 was filed by Shiv Pratap Singh (opposite party No. 2).
5. A perusal of the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition shows that by the order dated 25-11-1992 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46686 of 1992, this Court directed the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria (Respondent No. 2 in the writ petition ) to decide the representation of the petitioner-applicant within the time mentioned in the said order dated 25-11-1992.
6. Copy of the said order dated 25-11-1992 has been filed as Annexure 1 to the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition
7. In paragraph 5 of the said counter affidavit sworn on 5th November, l993 filed by Shiv Pratap Singh (Opposite party No. 2), it is, inter-alia, stated that the representation of the petitioner-applicant as per the directions contained in the said order dated 25-11-1992 was decided on 3-11-1993 after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-applicant on 18-10-1993.
8. Reasons for the delay in complying with the said order dated 25-11-1992 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46686 of 1993 have also been stated in the said counter affidavit.
9. It is thus, evident that the directions contained in the said order dated 25-11-1992 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46686 of 1992 have been complied with by the opposite panics.
10. Reasons for the delay in complying with the said order dated 25-11-1992 have been stated in the said counter affidavit and it is evident that the delay in complying with the said order dated 25-1 1-1992 was neither deliberate nor wilful.
11. It is note-worthy that Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, inter-alia, requires wilful disobedience to any judgment, order etc. Section 2(b) is quoted below :
"2. Definitions.-In this Act. unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) ...
(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;
(c) ...
12. Therefore, mere disobedience to any judgment, order etc. will not make a person liable for contempt of Court. It only when such disobedience is found to be wilful, that the person will be liable for contempt of Court.
13. In the present case, as noted above, the directions contained in the said order dated 25-11-1792 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46686 of 1992 have been complied with by the opposite parties. Further, the delay in making such compliance was neither deliberate nor wilful.
14. Hence, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the opposite parties cannot be held liable for contempt of this Court.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the notices issued to the opposite parties are liable to be discharged, and the same are accordingly discharged. The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.