Subsequent compliance with the court’s direction rendered the contempt petition infructuous.

The complainants sought contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with a 10 December 2025 order in W.P. No. 201198/2024. That order required them to submit documents supporting their ownership claim to the Deputy Commissioner, who was to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders within 90 days of receiving their representation.

The complainants submitted their representation on 31 December 2025, but the Deputy Commissioner did not decide it within the stipulated period.

During the contempt proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner filed an affidavit stating that an enquiry had been conducted on 19 September 2026 and the claim rejected by endorsement issued that day; the Deputy Commissioner also tendered an unconditional apology for the delay.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s post-deadline enquiry and decision constituted compliance with the order dated 10 December 2025, such that the contempt proceedings should be dropped.

2. Whether the complainants could challenge the Deputy Commissioner’s endorsement in separate proceedings.

The petition was brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which empower the High Court to address and punish contempt of court.

The operative direction in the underlying writ petition required the Deputy Commissioner to consider the complainants’ representation, conduct an enquiry in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within 90 days of its submission.

The judgment cites no precedent or further legal test for contempt.

The Court considered the Deputy Commissioner’s affidavit and the materials showing that an enquiry had been conducted and an endorsement issued rejecting the claim.

It concluded that the direction to consider the representation had been complied with, notwithstanding the acknowledged delay, and noted the Deputy Commissioner’s unconditional apology.

Since the contempt petition concerned compliance with the writ-court direction—not the merits of the rejection—the Court left the complainants free to challenge the endorsement separately.

It took the compliance affidavit on record, dropped the contempt proceedings, discharged the notice, and reserved liberty to the complainants to challenge the Deputy Commissioner’s endorsement, if advised.