JUDGMENT S.P. MEHROTRA, J.--The present Contempt Petition under sections 10/12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 has been filed by the petiotioners-applicants, inter alia, praying for punishing the Opposite Parties for alkgedly having committed contempt of this Court by flouting the order dated 22.9.1993 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12190 of 1993. 2. It is, inter alia, stated in the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition that the land of the petitioners-applicants had been acquired by the State of Uttar Pradesh for Road construction and the road had been made, but the compensation of the petitioners-applicants could not be paid by the Land Acquisition Officer; and that it was also on record that the State did not adjust land in consolidation proceeding to the petitioners-applicants; and that the petitioners-applicants approached orally as well as by sending Registered Letter to the concerning authorities for obtaining compensation but neither concerning authorities paid any compensation amount nor did they decide the representation of the petitioners-applicants; and that in the circumstances, the petitioners-applicants filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12190 of 1993; and that the said writ petition was decided by this Court by the order dated 22.9.1993, inter alia, directing the respondents in the said writ petition to decide the representation of the petitioners-applicants within the time mentioned in the said order dated 22.9.1993. Copy of the said order dated 22.9.1993 has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition. 3. The relevant portion of the said order dated 22.9.1993 is quoted below:- "....... Without recording any finding pertaining to the claim of the petitioner, we direct the respondent No.2 to dispose of the aforesaid representation dated 29th August, 1990, Annexure 6 to the petition filed by the petitioner preferably with in a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority. The petitioner while filing a certified copy of this order will also file another copy of the aforesaid representation, Annexure 5 to the petition, before the said authority. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed of. Let a certified copy of this order issue to the petitioner within two days on payment of usual charges. 4. The petitioner while filing a certified copy of this order will also file another copy of the aforesaid representation, Annexure 5 to the petition, before the said authority. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed of. Let a certified copy of this order issue to the petitioner within two days on payment of usual charges. 4. It is, inter alia, further stated in the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition that the petitioners-applicants sent an application along with certified copy of the order dated 22.9.1993 to the Opposite Parties for deciding the representation of the petitioners-applicants by registered letter, and thereafter, the petitioners-applicants sent a reminder to the Opposite Parties; and that the Opposite Parties did not decide the representation as directed by this Court by the said order dated 22.9.1993. 5. By the order dated 21.1.1994, notice was directed to be issued to the Opposite Party No.1 to comply with the said order dated 22.9.1993 with in a period of four weeks or to show cause by filing counter affidavit within the same period as to why action be not taken under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non-compliance of this Court's order dated 22.9.1993. 6. The said order dated 21.1.1994 is quoted below :-- "Issue notice to the Opposite Party No.1 to comply with the order dated 22.9.1993 of this Court in Writ Petition No. 12190 of 1993 (Ayodhya Prasad Srivastava and another v. State of U.P. and others) within a periud of four weeks or to show cause by filing a counter affidavit within the same period as to why action be not taken under Contempt of Courts Act for non-compliance of this Court's order dated 22.9.1993. List on 28th February, 1994." 7. In response to the notice issued to the Opposite Party No.1 (J.P. Vishwakarma) pursuant to the said order dated 21.1.1994, the said J.P. Vishwakarma (Opposite Party No.1) has put-in appearance and filed this counter affidavit sworn on 24.2.1994. 8. A perusal of the averments made in paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the said counter affidavit shows that pursuanf to the directions contained in the said order dated 22.9.1993 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12190 of 1993, the representation of the petitioners-applicants was decided by the Opposite Party No.1 (J.P. Vishwakarma) by the order dated 15.2.1994. 8 and 9 of the said counter affidavit shows that pursuanf to the directions contained in the said order dated 22.9.1993 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12190 of 1993, the representation of the petitioners-applicants was decided by the Opposite Party No.1 (J.P. Vishwakarma) by the order dated 15.2.1994. Copy of the said order dated 15.2.1994 has been filed as Annexure C.A. 3 to the said counter affidavit. 9. Reasons for the delay in complying with the direction given by this Court in the said order dated 22.9.1993 passed in the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12190 of 1993 have also been stated in the said counter affidavit. 10. Nothing has been brought on record by the petitioners-applicants to show that the averments made in the said counter affidavit are not correct. 11. None is present on behalf of the petitioners-applicants to press the present Contempt Petition. 12. In the circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the said counter affidavit. 13. It is further evident that the directions given in the said order dated 22.9.1993 passed in the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12190 of 1993 for deciding the representation of the petitioners-applicants have been complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 by passing the order dated 15.2.1994. Copy of the said order dated 15.2.1994, as noted above, has been filed as Annexure C.A.3 to the said counter affidavit. 14. The reasons for the delay in complying with the directions given in the said order dated 22.9.1993 passed in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12190 of 1990 have been stated in the said counter affidavit, and it is evident that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate. 15. It is further noteworthy that by the said order dated 21.1.1994 passed on the Contempt Petition, the Opposite Party No.1 was given further four weeks' time for complying with the directions contained in the said order dated 22.9.1993. The Opposite Party No.1 complied with the said order dated 22.9.1993 within the said extended period of four weeks by passing the order on the representation of the petitioners-applicants on 15.2.1994. 16. It is further pertinent to note that section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines "civil contempt" as meaning wilful disobedience to any judgment, order etc. of a Court. 16. It is further pertinent to note that section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines "civil contempt" as meaning wilful disobedience to any judgment, order etc. of a Court. The said section 2 (b) is quoted below :-- " 'civil contempt' means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court." 17. In view of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that mere disobedience to any judgment, order etc. is not sufficient for holding a person liable for Contempt of Court. It is only when such disobedience is wilful that the person is liable for Contempt of Court. 18. In the present case, as held above, the delay in complying with the directions contained in the said order dated 22.9.1993 passed in the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12190 of 1993 was neither wilful nor deliberate. 19. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 cannot be held liable for having committed contempt of this Court, and the show-cause notice issued to the Opposite Party No. 1 is liable to be discharged. The show-cause notice issued to the Opposite Party No. 1 is accordingly discharged. 20. The Contempt Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Contempt Petition Disposed Off.