ORDER This Contempt Case is filed to punish the respondents herein under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for the alleged noncompliance with the order passed by this Court on 14-6-2007 in W.V.M.P.Nos.253 & 254 of 2007 in W.P.M.P.Nos.820 and 821 of 2007 in W.P.No.661 of 2007. 2. The petitioner herein (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited - hereinafter referred to as ONGC) is the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.661 of 2007. The said writ petition was filed by the 151 respondent herein represented by the 2nd respondent being its Whole-time Director. The 3rd respondent herein, described as Chairman & Managing Director of the 151 respondent Company was not a party to the writ petition. 3. In W.P.No.661 of 12007 a Writ of Mandamus was sought declaring the action of ONGC in withdrawing the benefit of APM price in relation to natural gas supplied to the power plant of the writ petitioner (1st respondent herein) and in demanding payment of market price retrospectively as arbitrary and illegal. Along with the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.820 of 2007 and 821 of 2007 were also filed seeking stay for recovery of the amounts demanded by ONGC under the debit advices dated 31-1 0-2006 and also a further direction not to stop the supply of gas to the power plant of the writ petitioner. This Court while directing Rule Nisi in Writ petition by orders dated 5-1-2007 granted interim stay and interim direction as prayed for in W.P.M.P.Nos.820 & 821 of 2007. Thereafter, ONGC filed a counter-affidavit along with applications to vacate the ad interim orders dated 5-1-2007. The said applications being W.V.M.P. Nos.253 & 254 of 2007 were heard and allowed by order dated 14-6-2007 thereby vacating the interim orders dated 5-1-2007. However, the writ petitioner (151 respondent herein) was granted two weeks time for payment of the amounts demanded under the impugned letter dated 31-10-2006. 4. It is not in dispute that though the writ petitioner filed Review W.P.M.P. No. 17480 of 2007 seeking to review the order dated 14-6-2007, the same was dismissed on 20-9-2007 and the main writ petition was directed to be listed for final hearing. 5. 4. It is not in dispute that though the writ petitioner filed Review W.P.M.P. No. 17480 of 2007 seeking to review the order dated 14-6-2007, the same was dismissed on 20-9-2007 and the main writ petition was directed to be listed for final hearing. 5. This Contempt Case was filed on 25-10-2007 alleging that the respondents herein who are duty-bound to comply with the order passed by this Court dated 14-6-2007 by paying the entire arrears of enhanced gas price of Rs.15,31,28,439/- deliberately and wilfully did not pay the said amount and thus violated the direction issued by this Court and therefore they are liable to be prosecuted and punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it is pleaded that after the interim orders were vacated by this Court on 14-6-2007, the 3rd respondent herein by letter dated 15-6-2007 informed ONGC that the 151 respondent company was shutting down its plant and would not be drawing gas from 1-7-2007 onwards. On 25-6-2007 ONGC addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent to pay the arrears of gas price before 28-6-2007. Though the 2nd respondent gave a reply dated 29-6-2007, the arrears of gas price were not paid. Hence, the respondents are guilty of violation of the orders passed by this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner (ONGC) contended that but for the ad interim orders dated 5-1-2007 granted by this Court, the petitioner would have stopped the supply of gas and the conduct of the respondents herein in receiving gas supplies under the cover of interim order and subsequently committing default in payment of the enhanced price as per the directions issued by this Court while vacating the interim orders is mala fide and contemptuous. 9. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and anothers and T. Penchalaiah v. Jaladanki Saroja (died) per L.Rs. 10. At the outset, the operative portion of the order dated 14-6-2007 in W.V.M.P. No. 253 & 254 of 2007 may be extracted hereunder: 'For the aforesaid reasons, the interim orders dated 5-1-2007 in W.P.M.P. Nos. (P) Ltd., Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and anothers and T. Penchalaiah v. Jaladanki Saroja (died) per L.Rs. 10. At the outset, the operative portion of the order dated 14-6-2007 in W.V.M.P. No. 253 & 254 of 2007 may be extracted hereunder: 'For the aforesaid reasons, the interim orders dated 5-1-2007 in W.P.M.P. Nos. 820 & 821 of 20Q7 cannot be continued any longer and the same are hereby vacated. However, the petitioner company is granted two weeks time from today for payment of the amounts demanded under the impugned letter dated 31-10-2006. It is made clear that the amounts so paid shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. Accordingly, WVMP Nos.253 & 254 of 2007 are allowed and WPMP Nos.820 & 821 of 2007 shall stand dismissed. No costs." 11. From the above, it is clear that there was no direction as such to the writ petitioner for payment of the amounts demanded. While vacating the interim orders, this Court having held that the demand made by ONGC dated 31-10-2006 for payment of a sum of Rs. 8,09,58,840/- towards the difference price for the natural gas supplied to the writ petitioner from 1-7-2005 cannot be held to be illegal, granted two weeks time to the writ petitioner (1 51 respondent herein) for payment of the amounts demanded under the impugned letter making it clear that the amounts so paid shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. The time so granted to the writ petitioner to satisfy the impugned demand dated 31-10-2006 cannot be construed as a direction or order for payment nor there was an undertaking by the writ petitioner. 12. As per Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, 'Civil Contempt' means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. As noticed above, since there was neither a direction by this Court nor an undertaking by the writ petitioner for payment of the amounts demanded, the question of willful disobedience does not arise and consequently the conduct of the respondents does not fall within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act. So far as Criminal Contempt as defined under Section 2(c) is concerned it is no doubt, abuse of the process of the Court would amount to criminal contempt. 13. So far as Criminal Contempt as defined under Section 2(c) is concerned it is no doubt, abuse of the process of the Court would amount to criminal contempt. 13. The learned Senior Counsel while placing strong reliance upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority's case (1 supra) sought to contend that the conduct of the respondents in not paying the amounts due having gained undue advantage by virtue of the interim orders granted by this Court and having made unjust enrichment is contemptuous. 14. In Delhi Development Authority's case (1 supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a case where it was established that the respondent therein committed deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order of the Court and had also committed fraud. The observations made in the particular facts and circumstances of the said case have no application at all to the case on hand. 15. The two other decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel are also clearly distinguishable on facts. 16. May be that the respondents herein I committed default in payment of the amounts due, but it is not as if ONGC is left with no remedy for redressal of its grievance. From the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of ONGC, It is clear that what is sought to be enforced in this Contempt Case is not the infringement of an order of this Court but enforcement of the rights of ONGC for recovery of the amounts due from the respondents herein. 17. It is a well-settled principle of law that Contempt of Court is a matter which concerns the administration of justice but not a. mode by which the rights of a party can be enforced against the other party. 18. On a careful consideration of the material on record as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the alleged action of the respondents in committing default in payment of the amounts due does not tantamount to contempt warranting exercise of the jurisdiction under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 19. Hence, the Contempt Case is hereby dismissed. No costs.