Contempt Jurisdiction Includes Power to Direct Fresh Compliance to Ensure Principles of Natural Justice

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the judgment dated 22.11.2024 passed in W.P.(C) 12107/2019

The original judgment directed the respondents to comply with the principles of natural justice

The respondents filed an affidavit claiming they served a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on 01.01.2025 and subsequently passed a speaking order on 12.02.2025 after the petitioner failed to reply

The petitioner disputed the receipt of the SCN

1. Whether the respondents’ actions in passing a speaking order without ensuring the receipt of the Show Cause Notice constituted compliance with the principles of natural justice and the court's prior directions

2. Whether the Court should exercise its power to issue fresh directions to ensure substantial compliance with its original order

The court applied the principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to be heard and the requirement of fair notice

The Court relied on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Shahi v. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav, (2008) 14 SCC 115, which empowers the Court to pass appropriate directions in contempt proceedings to ensure the effective implementation of its orders even if a technical breach is not immediately punished

The Court observed that while the respondents claimed to have issued an SCN and a subsequent speaking order, the petitioner’s denial of receipt suggested that the "purport" of the original directions—ensuring natural justice—had not been met

The Court determined that the exercise carried out by the respondents was not in consonance with the spirit of the judgment dated 22.11.2024

Rather than focusing solely on the "willful disobedience" for punishment, the Court applied the Anil Kumar Shahi doctrine to rectify the procedural lapse, holding that it is incumbent upon the Court to issue fresh directions to ensure the original order is complied with in letter and spirit

The Court directed the respondents to issue a fresh SCN to the petitioner and mark a copy to the petitioner's counsel; granting the petitioner one week to respond, after which the respondents must take a fresh decision uninfluenced by their previous orders. The contempt petition was disposed of with these directions.