Civil contempt requires wilful disobedience of a clear court order; plausible competing interpretations defeat contempt jurisdiction.

Civil contempt is established only on proof of wilful and deliberate disobedience of a clear court direction. Here, the alleged breach concerned the practical implementation of an earlier order requiring supply of relied upon documents, time for reply, and removal of the seal, but the parties adopted competing and plausible interpretations of what adequate access to records and computer data required. The contempt court held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to decide the correctness of the cancellation order on merits. As no deliberate disobedience was proved, contempt failed and the petitioner was left to pursue the separate remedy against cancellation of the licence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents committed civil contempt by wilfully disobeying the order dated 18.8.2010 and by allegedly denying the petitioner effective access to records and computer data before proceeding with cancellation of the licence.

Analysis: The order dated 18.8.2010 required supply of the relied upon documents, time for final reply, and removal of the seal, but the contempt court found that the core dispute was whether the petitioner was given adequate access to the computer system and records to prepare a complete explanation. The Court held that the parties held competing views on the practical implementation of the earlier order and on what the licensing rules required for a reply. In contempt proceedings, the enquiry is confined to whether there was deliberate and wilful disobedience of the court's direction, not whether the administrative action or the cancellation order was correct on merits. Since the matter involved at most a difference of interpretation and the petitioner had an alternate remedy against the cancellation order, the ingredients of contempt were not established.

Conclusion: The allegation of contempt was not proved and the respondents were not held guilty.

Final Conclusion: The contempt petition failed because the alleged breach did not amount to wilful disobedience of the court's earlier order, and the petitioner was left to pursue the separate remedy against the cancellation of licence.

Ratio Decidendi: Civil contempt is made out only on proof of wilful and deliberate disobedience of a clear court direction; where the alleged contemnor adopts one of two plausible interpretations of the order, contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to adjudicate the underlying merits of the dispute.

---