Civil contempt for withholding compensation-linked TDS after settled legal notice, with fine imposed instead of imprisonment.

Continued retention of compensation-linked TDS amounts after clear notice of the governing legal position, without bona fide justification or due diligence, amounted to wilful disobedience and civil contempt because it substantially interfered with the due course of justice. The Court held that a successor officer remains responsible for completing unfinished official action and rejected the explanation offered as a valid defence. Although an unconditional apology was tendered and the amount had been deposited, imprisonment was found unnecessary. The respondent was therefore held guilty of civil contempt, with punishment confined to a personal fine and costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's continued withholding of the deducted TDS amount from compensation payable under land acquisition proceedings, despite repeated notices and settled legal position, constituted civil contempt and warranted punishment; and what punishment was appropriate.

Analysis: The amount retained as TDS arose from compensation payable to landowners, and the legal position on non-deduction from interest forming part of compensation had already been settled by the Court. The respondent had knowledge of the relevant correspondence and the settled position, yet did not ensure refund or disbursement for a prolonged period. The Court held that a successor officer in charge remains responsible for completing unfinished official action, and that the explanation offered did not constitute a bona fide or due-diligence defence. The conduct was found to have substantially interfered with the due course of justice and amounted to wilful disobedience within the meaning of civil contempt. While an unconditional apology was tendered and the amount had already been deposited, the Court found that imprisonment was unnecessary and that a fine would meet the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The respondent was held guilty of civil contempt; the apology was accepted to the extent of avoiding imprisonment, and punishment was confined to a personal fine with costs.

Final Conclusion: The contempt petition succeeded, the respondent was found guilty of wilful disobedience, and the matter was finally concluded by imposition of fine and costs rather than custodial punishment.

Ratio Decidendi: Continued retention of compensation-linked amounts after clear notice of the governing legal position, without bona fide justification or due diligence, amounts to civil contempt when it substantially interferes with the due course of justice.

---