Disposal of Representation Negates Allegation of Wilful Disobedience in Contempt Proceedings

The petitioner, Ms Prenda Creations P Ltd, filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the directions issued by the Delhi High Court in an earlier order dated 02.11.2022 in W.P.(C) 15156/2022.

The original order required the respondent to consider and dispose of a representation made by the petitioner.

During the pendency of these contempt proceedings, the Additional Commissioner (Customs), Mumbai Customs Zone-II, passed an order dated 20.05.2026 addressing the petitioner's representation.

The respondent contended that this order constituted full compliance with the court's prior directions.

1. Whether the respondent's action in passing the order dated 20.05.2026 amounts to compliance with the court's earlier directions, thereby negating the allegation of wilful disobedience.

The court applied the principles governing civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifically focusing on the requirement of "wilful disobedience."

The core legal principle dictates that if a contemnor takes steps to comply with a court's direction—such as disposing of a pending representation as directed—the grounds for contempt no longer subsist as the element of defiance is removed.

The court examined the submission of the respondent’s counsel and the subsequent order passed by the Mumbai Customs authorities on 20.05.2026.

Upon reviewing the fact that the representation had been officially disposed of, the court determined that the substantial direction of the earlier writ order (02.11.2022) had been fulfilled.

The court reasoned that since the administrative authority had exercised its jurisdiction to pass an order as previously mandated, it could not be said that there was any "wilful disobedience" on the part of the respondent.

The court further noted that the merits of the new order (dated 20.05.2026) were not the subject of the contempt proceedings, but rather a fresh cause of action for the petitioner.

The court granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the order dated 20.05.2026 or seek other appropriate remedies if they remained aggrieved by the underlying decision.