M/S.Shri Agarwal Construction Company vs The Registrar General
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 606
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2026
(DIARY NO.21438/2026)
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.30588 OF 2025
BHARAT KUMAR BADLANI …PETITIONER
VERSUS
SEEMA CHAUDHARY …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The petitioner in the present contempt petition, namely
Bharat Kumar Badlani, initiated contempt proceedings
against the contemnors, being the Deputy
Commissioner, Vigilance, Nagar Nigam Heritage, Jaipur,
Rajasthan; the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Local
Self Government Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan; and
the Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Heritage, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The petitioner alleged wilful disobedience and contempt
th
of the interim order of this Court dated 30 January
2026, passed in I.A. No. 14401 of 2026 in SLP(C) No.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.05.30
13:31:56 IST
Reason:
30588 of 2025. By virtue of that order, this Court had
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) ……. OF 2026 @ DIARY NO.21438 1
directed the concerned authorities to open/de-seal the
premises bearing House No. 74, Rajamal Ka Talab,
Janta Market Road, Chowkdi Sarhad, Jaipur, and to
restore possession thereof to the petitioner.
3. The pending batch of Special Leave Petitions before this
Court arises from a Public Interest Litigation filed before
the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, wherein
allegations were made regarding unauthorised
construction within the Walled City area of Jaipur. The
High Court passed orders of demolition and permanent
sealing of certain private properties, including that of the
petitioner herein, without impleadment or an
opportunity of hearing to the affected parties.
Accordingly, several Special Leave Petitions were filed by
persons whose properties were directed to be sealed.
This Court issued notice and stayed the operation of the
orders passed by the High Court. In the meanwhile, this
Court has passed orders and directions for the de-
sealing of certain properties.
th
4. Accordingly, this Court passed an order dated 30
January 2026 in I.A. No. 14401 of 2026 in SLP(C) No.
30588 of 2025, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
“IA No. 14401/2026 - In the interim order granted on
13.10.2025, we have stayed the effect and operation of
the direction issued in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the
impugned order. However by means of present
application, it is submitted that in the meantime, the
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) ……. OF 2026 @ DIARY NO.21438 2
premises of the applicant-Bharat Kumar Badlani has
been sealed. As such, this Court may consider
directing for desealing of the said premises, as directed
in other connected case(s). We accordingly, dispose of
the present application with a further direction that
the authority concerned to open/de-seal the premises
in question, i.e. House No. 74, Rajamal Ka Talab, Janta
Market Road, Chowkdi Sarhad, Jaipur and restore
possession thereof to the applicant.”
5. The petitioner submitted before this Court that he had
th
filed a written representation dated 6 February 2026
before the Deputy Commissioner, Hawa Mahal-Amer
Zone, Nagar Nigam Heritage, Jaipur, enclosing a copy of
th
the order dated 30 January 2026 and seeking
compliance therewith. The said representation was also
th
sent by email dated 11 February 2026 to all concerned
authorities. Despite the aforesaid, the respondent-
authorities failed to comply with the directions of this
Court and continued to keep the premises sealed.
th
6. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 12
March 2026 upon the respondent-authorities, by both
post and email, calling upon them to forthwith comply
with the order of this Court.
7. The petitioner, confronted with the persistent and wilful
disobedience of the orders of this Court, was constrained
to initiate the present contempt petition.
rd
8. This Court passed an order dated 23 April 2026, noting
that the learned Additional Advocate General for the
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) ……. OF 2026 @ DIARY NO.21438 3
State of Rajasthan sought 24 hours to obtain
instructions in the matter.
th
9. Thereafter, this Court passed an order dated 24 April
2026, which is reproduced hereinbelow :
“We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Padmesh Mishra, learned AAG appearing for the
respondent-State of Rajasthan.
We had granted 24 hours’ time to the respondent(s) to
ensure compliance with the orders passed by this
Court. Today Mr. Mishra, on instructions, has placed
rd
before us a communication dated 23 April, 2026
issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hawa Mahal-Amer
Zone Municipal Corporation Jaipur Part-II.
Having perused the same, we deem it appropriate to
direct the said officer described above, to remain
th
present before this Court on Monday i.e. on 27 April,
2026 at 10.30 A.M. along with an explanation as to why
th th
the orders dated 30 October, 2025 and 30 January,
2026 have not been complied with. List the matters on
th
27 April, 2026”
th
10. This Court passed an order dated 27 April 2026, which
is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Pursuant to order dated 24.04.2026, Ms. Seema
Choudhary, Deputy Commissioner, Hawa Mahal-Amer
Zone, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Part-II, Jaipur, is
present.
Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Learned Additional Advocate
General for the State of Rajasthan, states that the
property has already been de-sealed and possession
has been handed over to the petitioner on Saturday,
25.04.2026. No affidavit has been filed by respondent
no.1. We, therefore, direct her to file the following
affidavits within a week from today:
(i) An Affidavit of full compliance.
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) ……. OF 2026 @ DIARY NO.21438 4
(ii) An explanation for the delay caused in not
complying with the order dated 30.01.2026.
(iii) It shall be optional for her to file apology.
Let this matter be listed again on 06.05.2026.
On the said date, respondent no.1 shall again remain
present.”
11. Further, this Court notes with grave concern that
simultaneously with the de-sealing of the premises on
th
25 April 2026, the Director, Directorate of Local Bodies,
th
issued a communication dated 24 April 2026
demanding a sum of Rs. 10,52,832/- (Rupees ten lakh
fifty two thousand eight hundred thirty two only) from
the petitioner as a purported premium/security deposit.
This Court views such a demand, made at the very
moment of compliance with a judicial order directing
restoration of possession, as wholly improper and
bearing the character of a coercive and retaliatory act
against the petitioner.
12. Thereafter, having perused the affidavit filed by the
th
contemnor, this Court passed an order dated 6 May
2026, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Pursuant to the order dated 27.04.2026, an affidavit
has been filed by the contemnor, Deputy
Commissioner, Hawa Mahal-Amer Zone, Municipal
Corporation, Jaipur Part-II, Jaipur.
On perusal of the said affidavit, the reason for the
delay given is that the matter was taken up with the
Director as also the Municipal Commissioner.
However, the communications in that regard have not
been placed on record.
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) ……. OF 2026 @ DIARY NO.21438 5
Accordingly, let the entire trail of communications be
placed on record by way of an affidavit of the Deputy
Commissioner to be filed within a week from today.
List this matter again on 18.05.2026.
On the said date, the Deputy Commissioner shall again
remain present.”
th
13. Further, on 18 May 2026, this Court passed an order
in the following terms:
“We have examined the affidavit of compliance filed by
the contemnor pursuant to the order dated
06.05.2026. We are prima facie satisfied that this is a
fit case for framing of charge. List this matter on
21.05.2026. On the said date, the opposite party shall
remain present for framing of charge”
st
14. On the last date of hearing, namely 21 May 2026,
respondent-contemnors were present in-person, duly
represented by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional
Solicitor General, and Mr. Padmesh Mishra, learned
Additional Advocate General, for the State of Rajasthan.
The respondent-contemnors filed an unconditional
apology before this Court. They also placed on record a
th
communication dated 19 May 2026, by which the
Director has withdrawn the earlier communication
th
dated 24 April 2026 demanding Rs. 10,52,832/-
(Rupees ten lakh fifty two thousand eight hundred thirty
two only) from the petitioner.
15. At the very outset, this Court must place on record its
grave and unequivocal displeasure at the conduct of the
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) ……. OF 2026 @ DIARY NO.21438 6
respondent-contemnors. The record reveals a disturbing
pattern of evasion, inaction, and deliberate disregard for
clear and unambiguous orders of this Court. It is a
matter of deep concern that officials entrusted with the
discharge of public duties under the law found it
permissible to treat the orders of the highest Court of
this land as something to be addressed at their leisure,
rather than with the promptitude and urgency that such
directions imperatively demand.
16. Contempt of the orders of this Court strikes at the very
foundation of the rule of law and the authority of the
judiciary. When public functionaries, who are the
custodians and executors of the law, defy judicial orders
with impunity, it casts a deep and lasting shadow over
the administration of justice and erodes the confidence
of the citizens in the legal system.
17. This Court is compelled to note the sequence of events
with dismay. The order directing de-sealing of the
th
petitioner's property was passed as far back as 30
January 2026. Months elapsed without compliance.
th
Despite the petitioner's written representation dated 6
th
February 2026, his follow-up email of 11 February
th
2026, and the legal notice dated 12 March 2026, there
was inaction of the part of the respondent-authorities. It
was only upon the initiation of the present contempt
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) ……. OF 2026 @ DIARY NO.21438 7
petition, and thereafter, upon this Court granting a 24
rd
hours on 23 April 2026 to ensure compliance, that the
machinery was finally set in motion. The property was
th
de-sealed on 25 April 2026, which is nearly three
months after the direction was issued. The Director-
cum-Special Secretary accorded post-facto approval
th
only on 26 April 2026, which itself a telling
commentary on the administrative approach adopted
throughout these proceedings. Upon examination of the
entire trail of communications placed before us, this
Court was prima facie satisfied that charges ought to be
framed which is a finding recorded in the order dated
th
18 May 2026.
18. However, this Court is also mindful that the power to
punish for contempt, though wide, must be exercised
with restraint, discretion, and a regard for the ends of
justice. Punishment in contempt proceedings is not an
end in itself; it is a means to secure compliance, to
uphold the dignity of the Court, and to serve as a
deterrent to those who may seek to treat judicial orders
with levity.
19. We are cognisant of the fact that the respondent-
contemnors, the Deputy Commissioner, Ms. Seema
Choudhary; the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Mr
Juikar Pratik Chandrashekhar; and the Commissioner,
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) ……. OF 2026 @ DIARY NO.21438 8
Mr. Om Prakash Kasera, have each tendered
unconditional affidavits of apology before this Court for
the delay in complying with its orders. In their affidavits,
the contemnors have acknowledged the gravity of their
default, expressed sincere regret for the inconvenience
caused to the petitioner as a result of their inaction, and
solemnly assured this Court that greater diligence and
care shall be exercised henceforth in complying with the
orders and directions issued by this Court and other
courts of competent jurisdiction. The contemnors have
th
further submitted that the communication dated 24
April 2026 issued by the Director, Directorate of Local
Bodies, demanding a sum of Rs. 10,52,832/- (Rupees
ten lakh fifty two thousand eight hundred thirty two
only) from the petitioner as a purported
premium/security, has since been withdrawn, and have
tendered an unqualified apology to this Court for the
issuance of such a demand, acknowledging that it was
wholly improper and ought never to have been made.
20. This Court accepts the unconditional apology tendered
by the contemnors. The acceptance of the apology,
however, must not be understood as a minimisation of
the conduct that gave rise to these proceedings. The
contemnors are put on clear and unambiguous notice
that any future default or negligence in the face of
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) ……. OF 2026 @ DIARY NO.21438 9
judicial orders , whether of this Court or of any other
court, shall be viewed with the utmost severity and shall
not be treated with the same degree of indulgence.
21. In view of the foregoing, and in light of the unconditional
apologies tendered by the contemnors as well as the fact
that compliance with the order of de-sealing has now
been effected, we accept the apology and discharge the
present contempt notice.
22. The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly
and be consigned to record .
23. It is made clear that the observations made herein are
confined to the present contempt petition and shall not
have any bearing on the merits of the main special leave
petition, which remains pending for hearing.
……………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
……………………………..J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI
MAY 29, 2026
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) ……. OF 2026 @ DIARY NO.21438 10