Failure to resolve a representation within the court-mandated timeline constitutes a ground for contempt directions.

The Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the court’s order dated 26th May, 2026, passed in W.P.(C) 7489/2026

In the original writ petition, the Court had directed the National Commission for Scheduled Castes ("Commission") to dispose of the Petitioner’s representation within five months

The Petitioner claimed the representation remained undecided

The Respondent (the Commission) contended that while they had received a report from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (North District), the Petitioner had failed to file a response to said report

During the proceedings, the Petitioner committed to filing a response within three days

1. Whether the Respondent committed willful disobedience of the court's direction to decide the Petitioner's representation within the stipulated timeline

2. Whether the delay in adjudicating the representation was attributable to the Petitioner’s failure to respond to departmental reports

The Court applied the principles of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifically regarding the "willful disobedience" of judicial orders

It relied on the administrative law principle of audi alteram partem, ensuring that the Commission provides an opportunity of hearing to all respective parties before passing a final order

The court emphasized the statutory empowerment of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes to take action against non-cooperative authorities to ensure the timely adjudication of grievances

The Court examined the progress of the representation and noted that the Commission had indeed taken steps by seeking reports from the DCP

The Court observed that the delay was partially due to the Petitioner's pending response to the DCP’s report

Since the Petitioner agreed to file his response within three days, the Court found it premature to hold the Respondent in contempt

The Court reasoned that once the Petitioner submits his response, the Commission is duty-bound to fix a hearing date and pass an order

The Court reiterated that the five-month deadline previously set must be strictly adhered to, ensuring that administrative delays do not defeat the petitioner’s legal remedy

It directed the Petitioner to file his response within three days and ordered the Respondent to comply with the original order dated 26th May, 2026, by concluding the proceedings within the five-month period originally granted

The Respondent was specifically directed to provide an opportunity for a hearing to all parties before passing the final order