Subsequent Developments Can't Be Used To Bypass Writ Court Orders In Contempt Proceedings: Uttarakhand High Court

Holding that subsquent developments cannot be used to bypass orders of the writ court in contempt proceedings, the Uttarakhand High Court held the officials of State authority in contempt of an earlier order directing inclusion of a party in the tender process for a road contract. The court noted that the respondents by pleading new developments attempted to frustrate the order of writ court as well as the contempt proceedings.The petitioner participated in a tender process floated by the state department for road construction, in which the petitioner was disqualified in the technical evaluation round.Aggrieved by the exclusion, the petitioner moved the high court. The petition remained pending for one and half year and during this period the entire bidding process was put on hold and subsequently the petition was allowed on 26.02.2026 and respondents were directed to include the bid of the petitioner's firm in the financial round and proceed in accordance with law.The writ court had held that the petitioner was illegally disqualified.Thereafter the petitioner moved the present contempt petition for non compliance of the court's direction alleging that the respondent has again put on hold the entire bidding process on the ground that some of the bidders are not agreeable to extend their bid validity period.Justice Rakesh Thapliyal said that the Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the subject matter of petition which has already been decided in any manner nor to dealt with by the Writ Court while passing the order."If the plea of respondent/contemnor is accepted at this stage that due to some new development there is no need to comply with the judgment then it amounts to frustrate the order of the Writ Court as well as to frustrate the contempt proceeding and in such an eventuality this Court is of the view that if there is any impossibility to obey the order then it has been assailed for correctness of the judgment before the Higher Court"It said that a contempt court cannot look into the rightness and wrongness of the writ court's order. "After considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the discussion as above, this Court finds that the respondent/contemnor are guilty of wilful disobedience of the order of the Writ Court dated 26.02.2026 passed in WPMB No. 534 of 2024, M/s Ram Krishan Jayara vs. State of Uttarakhand and others.The attempt of the respondent/contemnor to put the process of financial bid on hold on the plea that the other bidders have refused to extend their bid validity period and the petitioner is now left out to be a single bidder therefore his financial bid cannot be opened is nothing but after thought and creation of such a situation by the respondent/contemnor and this Court comes to the conclusion that with some oblique motive the respondent/contemnor are making an attempt to circumvent the order of the Writ Court". The court was considering whether putting the tender process on hold without opening the financial bid on the ground that the other bidders refused to extend their bid validity period wherein now the petitioner was left to be the single bidder and amounting to non-opening of financial bid, constitutes wilful circumvention and disobedience of the directions of Writ Court.The court was also considering another issue whether the plea of subsequent development that the other bidders are not extending their bid validity period will frustrate the tender process due to passage of time, amounts disobedience of the order of the Writ CourtThe court thus directed the respondents to strictly comply with the writ court's order within 10 days and submit compliance; failure to comply would amount to personal appearance of the contemnors to receive sentence under Contempt of Courts Act. Case title: M/s Ram Krishna Jayara v/s Sri Sanjay Kumar Pathak and others Contempt Petition No. 213 of 2026Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel.Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Raizada, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (UK) 81Click Here To Read/Download Order

Subsequent Developments Can't Be Used To Bypass Writ Court Orders In Contempt Proceedings: Uttarakhand High Court

Malavika Prasad

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Malavika Prasad

Subsequent Developments Can't Be Used To Bypass Writ Court Orders In Contempt Proceedings: Uttarakhand High Court

Malavika Prasad

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Malavika Prasad

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers