CYRIAC JOSEPH ( 1 ) THE allegation in this petition is that the 1. respondents wilfully disobeyed the orders contained in this Court s judgment dated 28. 11. 94 in CW. 430/94 and thereby committed contempt of court. ( 2 ) CW. 430/94 was filed by the petitioners herein challenging the demand of property tax raised by NDMC vide bill No. 376 dated 23. 11. 93 for Rs. 1,41,810. 00 relating to certain property of the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners was regarding the increased rateable value based on which the assessment for property tax was made. For the assessment years 1989-90 to 1992-93 the NDMC had accepted the rateable value of Rs. 72,951. 00. But for the assessment year 1993-94 the rateable value was considerably increased. By judgment dated 28. 11. 94 this court set aside the impugned bill for the year 1993-94 as well as the resolution dated 4. 3. 93 enhancing the rateable value and directed that fresh order of assessment should be passed after hearing the petitioner. This court also directed the petitioner to appear before the assessing officer on 10. 1. 95 to place before the assessing Officer the material as he might be advised. It was also observed that the Assessing Officer might make necessary enquiries from the tenant, if so adviced. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the averments in this petition the petitioners representative Sh. O. P. Popli and Sh. B. K. Sharma appeared before respondent No. 1 on 10. 1. 95 and Sh. O. P. Popli handed over personally copies of the certain documents to respondent No. 1. It is also stated that before appearing before respondent No. 1 petitioners had filed representation in writing alongwith certain documents and they were received acknowledgment by the NDMC on 5. 1. 95. It is alleged that respondents intentionally and deliberately did not take any steps to carry out the directions in the above mentioned judgment. Instead they sent a bill of demand bearing No. 2104 dated 9. 1. 96 thereby raising the demand of house tax on the same rateable value on the basis of which the earlier bill of demand for the year 1993 -94 was raised. On receipt of the said bill the petitioners representative Sh. O. P. Popli personally contacted respondents 1 and 2 and apprised them of the facts and also filed a representation dated 20. 1. On receipt of the said bill the petitioners representative Sh. O. P. Popli personally contacted respondents 1 and 2 and apprised them of the facts and also filed a representation dated 20. 1. 96 in the office of the Assistant Secretary (Tax) NDMC on 23. 1. 96. However, both the respondents refused to withdraw the demand and allegedly made certain contemptuous and derogatory remarks about the court. ( 4 ) THE respondents have filed separate affidavits in reply. They have denied the allegation that they disobeyed the orders of the court. They have also denied the allegation that they made contemptuous and derogatory remarks about the court. According to the averments in the affidavits of the respondents though tills court directed in the judgment dated 28. 11. 94 that tile petitioners should appear before the Assessing Officer on 10. 1. 95. It is also stated that the directions contained in the judgment dated 28. 11. 94 were followed by the respondents and the case for reassessment of house tax for the assessment year 1993-94 was processed and finalised in accordance with the rules. A revised bill also has been issued on 10. 4. 96 and it has been accepted by the petitioners. Thus, according to the averments in the affidavits of the respondents the directions contained in the judgment stand implemented and hence the petitioners cannot have any grievance. ( 5 ) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the following acts/conduct of the respondents constituted contempt of court: - 1. The respondents did not pass fresh order of assessment in respect of the year 1993-94 till the CCP was filed. 2. The respondents slept over the directions contained in the judgment dated 28. 11. 94 and went on demanding property tax for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 on the basis of the same rateable value which formed the basis for the assessment in 1993-94 and which was set aside by the court. 3. The respondents issued house tax bill dated 9. 1. 96 demanding tax for the years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 on the basis of the same rateable value based on which the assement for 1993-94 was made. 4. When the petitioners representative Mr. O. P. Popli contacted respondents 1 and 2, they made contemptuous and derogatory remarks about the court. 3. The respondents issued house tax bill dated 9. 1. 96 demanding tax for the years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 on the basis of the same rateable value based on which the assement for 1993-94 was made. 4. When the petitioners representative Mr. O. P. Popli contacted respondents 1 and 2, they made contemptuous and derogatory remarks about the court. ( 6 ) AS already pointed out, the respondents have already passed fresh assessment order in respect of the assessment year 1993-94 and also issued a revised bill on 10. 4. 96, which has been accepted by the petitioners, hi the judgment dated 28. 11. 94 in CW. 430/94 this court had not fixed any time limit for passing fresh assessment order. Moreover, the petitioner was not prejudiced by the delay in passidng the fresh assessment order since he had deposited only the admitted tax for the assessment year in question. Hence, the mere delay in passing the fresh assessment order will not constitute contempt of court. It is true that there was inaction on the part of the respondents in taking prompt action pursuant to the judgment dated 28. 11. 94. From the relevant files placed before me, it is seen that respondent No. 1 herself had taken note of the delay in taking action pursuant to the judgment and had sought the explanation of the subordinate staff The delay came to her notice only when the representation dated 20. 1. 96 of the petitioners was placed before her. The reason for the delay is stated to be that the file relating to further action pursuant to the judgment, got linked with the file relating to the assessment order for the year 1995-96. The relevant file and the notings disclose that the first respondent is conscious of the need for taking prompt action to comply with the orders of the court and that she had issued directions on various files and in the course of meetings, regarding prompt implementation of the orders of the court. The file also reveals that though this court had directed the petitioners to appear before the first respondent on 10. 1. 95, neither the petitioners nor their representatives appeared before respondent No. 1. The above fact is seen recorded on the file by the first respondent on 10. 1. 95 itself On 10. 1. The file also reveals that though this court had directed the petitioners to appear before the first respondent on 10. 1. 95, neither the petitioners nor their representatives appeared before respondent No. 1. The above fact is seen recorded on the file by the first respondent on 10. 1. 95 itself On 10. 1. 95 first respondent sent the file down with directions to put up a detailed note of all the facts of the case to enable her to implement the orders of the court. A note dated 13. 1. 95 was submitted to her On 27. 1. 95, the first respondent sought further details and clarification. However, the file did not come back. It appears that the file got linked with the file relating to assessment for the year 1995-96 and was never placed before the first respondent till she directed to put up the file on receipt of tile representation dated 20. 1. 96 of the petitioners. Thereupon, prompt action was taken, fresh assessment order was passed and revised bill was issued. In these circumstances 1 am not inclined to proceed against the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act on account of the delay in passing the fresh order of assessment. I am not satisfied that there was any wilful disobedience of this court s order by respondents 1 and 2. The claim of the petitioners that their representatives appeared before respondent No. 1 on 10. 1. 95 is belied by the entries in the relevant files. I have no reason to suspect the genuineness or correctness of those entries which were made in the normal course of transaction of business. ( 7 ) BY passing assessment orders for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 on the basis of the rateable value based on which the assessment was made for the year 1993-94, the respondents have not committed any contempt of court, because the subject matter of CW. 430/94 was the assessment for the year 1993-94 only. The judgment in CW. 430/94 did not cover the assessment for the year 1994-95 and 1995-96. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the assessment for 1994-95 and 1995-96, it was open to him to challenge those assessment orders in appropriate proceedings. ( 8 ) BY issuing the house tax bill dated 9. 1. 96 the respondents have not committed any contempt of court. 430/94 did not cover the assessment for the year 1994-95 and 1995-96. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the assessment for 1994-95 and 1995-96, it was open to him to challenge those assessment orders in appropriate proceedings. ( 8 ) BY issuing the house tax bill dated 9. 1. 96 the respondents have not committed any contempt of court. By the said bill only the tax due for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 was demanded. Though the tax due for the year 1993-94 also was mentioned in the bill, it was specifically indicated that the same was under stay. In so long as the bill dated 9. 1. 96 did not seek to demand the tax for the year 1993-94, the petitioners cannot raise any grievance. ( 9 ) THOUGH the petitioners have alleged that when their representative Mr. O. P. Popli contacted respondents 1 and 2 they made contemptuous and derogatory remarks about the court, the allegation does not contain necessary and specific details. It is not stated when, where and how Mr. O. P. Poph contacted respondents 1 and 2. Respondents have categorically denied the allegation and have stated that Mr. O. P. Poph did not contact them. Moreover, it is seen from the file that on receipt of the representation dated 20. 1. 96 respondent No. 1 initiated immediate action and tried to find out the reasons for the delay in implementing the order of the court. She called for the explanation of the officials concerned and also ensured that fresh assessment order was issued without any further delay. In these circumstances I am not inclined to believe the statement of the petitioner that the respondents made contemptuous or derogatory remarks about the court. ( 10 ) IN view of the above facts the CCP is dismissed on merits.