Civil contempt and wilful disobedience were not established where licence amendment was delayed but later completed.

The Court considered whether authorities committed civil contempt by wilfully disobeying an earlier writ order requiring timely amendment of a licence. It noted that the amendment was not completed within the stipulated period and that the authorities should have sought extension if difficulties arose. However, the licence was eventually amended, and the delay was explained as unintentional. The Court deprecated the unsatisfactory handling of the petitioner's request but held that the material did not establish wilful disobedience or justify a finding of civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. No civil contempt was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were guilty of civil contempt for wilful disobedience of the earlier writ order by delaying amendment of the licence beyond the time granted.

Analysis: The Court found that the authorities did not comply within the stipulated period and ought to have sought extension of time if they were facing difficulty. At the same time, the material on record showed that the licence was ultimately amended and the delay was explained as unintentional. The Court held that the conduct was unsatisfactory and deprecated the manner in which the petitioner's request was handled, but the facts did not justify a finding of civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner and no civil contempt was made out.

---