JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, CJ.(Oral) :- It was stated by Mr. Ramakant sharma and Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent No.l and 2 that both the respondents are present in the Court. They have been identified also as respondents No. 1 and 2, by the counsel. 2. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Assistant Excise and Taxation commissioner, Solan have filed this petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of courts Act, 1971 for initiating contempt proceedings against respondents (respondet No. 1 Mulk Raj, son of Narata Ram and respondent No.2 Bhupinder Kumar, son of Mulk Raj) for willful, intentional and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 1st March, 2001 passed by a Division bench of this Court in CMP No. 163 of 2001 in CWP No.96 of 2001. When the main matter i.e CWP No.96 of 2001 came up before the Division Bench, fresh notice was issued. In CMP No.163 of 2001, on 1st March, 2001, the following order was passed: "We have heard for the petitioner and learned Advocate General on behalf of opponents No. 1 and 2 as the relief prayed for by the petitioner pertains to interim relief against opponents No.l and 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met if we permit the respondent-authorities to proceed with the auction of attached property of the petitioner, but sale will not be confirmed before further orders to be passed by this Court and if(?) will be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. The said fact will be intimated to the bidders at the time of auction. Dasti copy on usual terms." 3. The allegation of the applicants is that the order was passed in presence of Mulak Raj, respondent No. 1 herein (petitioner, in the main matter). By the said order, the State-authorities were allowed to proceed with the auction of attached property of the petitioner. The only interim relief granted was not to confirm sale before further orders by the Court and the auction was made subject to final outcome of the writ petition. The said fact was to be intimated to the bidders at the time of auction. The auction was to be held on 3rd March, 2001. 4. Proceedings were accordingly taken for holding auction on 3rd March, 2001. The said fact was to be intimated to the bidders at the time of auction. The auction was to be held on 3rd March, 2001. 4. Proceedings were accordingly taken for holding auction on 3rd March, 2001. As per the report relating to "Auction Proceedings" dated 3rd march, 2001, submitted by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (annexure P-5 to the application, Annexure P-5/A English translation). The auction was to be held at 12.15 p.m. It is stated in the report that in presence of interested bidders, conditions of bid were read out to them. The bidders were informed about the order passed by this Court on 1st March, 2001 and the sale of the attached property being auctioned would be confirmed after further orders to be passed by the High Court. It was also stated that the successful bidder would have to deposit 25% of the total auctioned money on the spot. It was then asserted that respondet No. 1 Mulak Raj (petitioner of CWP No.96 of 2001) and Bhupinder Kumar son of Mulak Raj, respondent No.2 herein were present on the spot. Both, the father and son were dissuading the bidders from giving any bid. It Was alleged that respondent no.2 Bhupinder Kumar had affixed a notice on the shop put to auction, which had been taken out by the Peon and shown to the reporting officer, wherein it was written that the shop had been purchased by him from the court and no one should give any bid. The notice did not bear the signature of the writer. Since no bidder came forward, the auction proceedings were deferred for two hours. 5. At 2.15 p.m. again, no bidder was present as stated by the Reporting officer. All the bidders were apprehensive about the orders to be passed by the High Court in future and they felt that if the decision would be in favour of Mulak Raj, they would not be able to get back 25% of auctioned money paid. Accordingly, the bidders did not show any interest in the bid. 6. All the bidders were apprehensive about the orders to be passed by the High Court in future and they felt that if the decision would be in favour of Mulak Raj, they would not be able to get back 25% of auctioned money paid. Accordingly, the bidders did not show any interest in the bid. 6. The allegation of the petitioners in the application i s that though order was passed in the main matter as well as in C.M.P. in which respondent No. 1 was the petitioner and was represented by his counsel and in whose presence the order was passed, in violation of the said order, he dissuaded the bidders not to come forward to bid. Likewise, in spite of the order of this court, respondent No.2 put up a notice stating therein that he was the owner of the shop and no bidder should come forward. 7. In the light of the above allegations, notice was issued by me on 25th May, 2001 by making it returnable after four weeks. On 12th October, 2001, when the matter was placed for hearing, further order was passed. 8. Affidavits-in-reply have been filed by both the respondents. The fact that both of them were present at the time of auction is not disputed. Thus, there is a prima facie case that both the respondents were present. Again, it cannot be disputed that at least respondent No.l was aware of the proceedings, he being the petitioner in the main matter i.e. C.W.P. No. 96 of 2001 as well as in CMP No. 163 of 2001. In fact, in CMP, the order was passed partially granting the relief in favour of the applicant after hearing his learned counsel and authorities were allowed to hold public auction subject to certain terms and conditions. If thereafter he remained present and the allegation is that he attempted to thwart the auction proceedings, in my opinion, there is, prima facie case of contempt against him. NO doubt, it was stated by respondent No. 1 that it was because of the interim order passed by the court that sale will not be confirmed till further orders that bidders did not come forward. Reliance was also placed on the later part of the report of the Excise and Taxation Officer. NO doubt, it was stated by respondent No. 1 that it was because of the interim order passed by the court that sale will not be confirmed till further orders that bidders did not come forward. Reliance was also placed on the later part of the report of the Excise and Taxation Officer. But since respondent No. 1 himself was present and the allegations have been made, in my opinion, prima facie case has been made out and the matter deserves to be admitted. 9. Regarding respondent No.2, it was stated that he was not a party to the writ petition and any order, which had been passed by this Court either in C.W.P. or in C.M.P. did not direct him to do anything. At the same time, however, when an order was passed by this court by which the present petitioners were granted liberty to proceed with public auction, he should not have taken any action, which would even indirectly interfere with the implementation of the said order. When the property was permitted to be auctioned, he should not have interfered with the process. Even-if he was not a party to the petition and the order was passed by this Court, it was open to the authorities to take appropriate auction proceedings in accordance with law. In my opinion, therefore, even against respondent No.2, prima facie case has been made out. 10. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be case of "civil contempt", as defined in Clause (b) of Section 2 of Contempt of courts Act, 1971. In my opinion, therefore, now the requisite notice will have to be issued under the Contempt of Courts (Himachal Pradesh) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules)- The Registrar, as defined in Clause (e) of Rule 2 of the Rules, will issue notice to both the respondents in Form No. 1. Order accordingly. -