ORDER BY THE COURT The genesis of this contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (for short, ‘Act of 1971’) is the order dated 2nd of January 2012 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1026 of 2011 and order dated 9th of August 2012 passed in S.B. Civil Review Petition No.35 of 2012 both laid by the petitioner. In the contempt petition, the petitioner has hurled many insinuations against the respondent contemnors castigating them for committing blatant contempt of the orders passed by this Court. There remains no quarrel in the legal position that this Court while taking up the contempt matters, more particularly civil contempt, is primarily concerned with the acts and omissions attributed to the alleged contemnor as to whether he is guilty of willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court or not, and therefore, it is not necessary to examine the checkered factual background of the case. However, looking to the provisions, which are bone of contention embracing certain technical requirements, and the fact that learned counsel for the parties have addressed on many vital issues for thrashing out those issues, it has become imperative for the Court to have a glance at the factual background of the case, which has culminated into this contempt petition. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, a dealer of Petrol and High Speed Diesel (HSD) of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, having its petrol pump situated at village Paldi Khichiyan, District Jodhpur, submitted a writ petition challenging the allotment of dealership to the third respondent by BPCL at the site, which is nearby the petrol pump of the petitioner. As per the version of the petitioner, the allotment of dealership and setting up of a petrol pump by fourth respondent at the site is contrary to the guidelines issued by the State Government and as such No Objection Certificate (NOC) cannot be issued to the company BPCL. As per the version of the petitioner, the allotment of dealership and setting up of a petrol pump by fourth respondent at the site is contrary to the guidelines issued by the State Government and as such No Objection Certificate (NOC) cannot be issued to the company BPCL. Making serious allegations against the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 in the present petition, the petitioner has averred that the certificate issued by him for facilitating establishment of outlet of BPCL is not in accordance with the norms circulated by the State Government, and as in adherence of the same No Objection Certificate is likely to be issued by the District Collector, the objection of the petitioner be considered against the proposed setting up of petrol pump at the disputed site. In the prayer clause, the petitioner has incorporated the prayer that respondents be directed not to issue NOC in favour of fourth respondent for establishment of retail outlet at Paldi Khichiyan, Jodhpur. The writ petition was contested by all the respondents and finally the writ Court while taking cognizance of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent and the learned counsel for the petitioner, disposed of the writ petition on 02.01.2012 with under mentioned directions : “Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent No.4 in terms that the fuel station shall be established at the location proposed, strictly adhering to the conditions laid down under clauses 4.4.3 & 4.4.4 of the Guidelines issued by the State Government, after obtaining the NOC from the competent authority in accordance with law. No order as to costs.” Due to some typographical error in the order, the relevant clauses which were quoted in the order were clarified and in the order of review dated 9th August 2012 in place of clauses 4.4.3 & 4.4.4 Articles 4.6.3 and 4.6.4 of IRC 12-2009 were substituted. After disposal of the writ petition and the order passed on the review petition, the request made by the fourth respondent for issuance of NOC for establishing retail outlet at the site in question was issued on 4th of September 2012 (Ex.3) by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur with certain conditions. After disposal of the writ petition and the order passed on the review petition, the request made by the fourth respondent for issuance of NOC for establishing retail outlet at the site in question was issued on 4th of September 2012 (Ex.3) by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur with certain conditions. Now adverting to the contempt petition, the petitioner has averred in the contempt petition that the condition as envisaged in the NOC clearly denotes that 7.0 meter width service road is to be constructed beyond determined road boundary and as per the version of the petitioner no land is available after the road boundary. In this connection, the petitioner has also referred to a report which was submitted by the second respondent to the Police Commissioner, wherein according to him, he has very candidly admitted that no land is available for construction of 7.0 meter width service road and it can only be possible if the land belonging to one Jagdish Soni is purchased for facilitating construction of service road. In this connection, it is also averred that Mr. Jagdish Soni has refused to sell his land. Relying on the report, the petitioner has alleged conspiracy and collusion amongst the respondents and stated in the contempt petition that they are deliberately flouting the orders passed by this Court and have manipulated the things favourable to second respondent. The sum and substance of the submission of the petitioner is that the proposed service road of 7.0 meter width is likely to be constructed by encroaching upon the boundary of the road. Placing on record communication dated 1st of November 2012 (Ex.7), which is issued by the SHO Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur, and a copy is endorsed to Assistant Engineer, contains the recitals to get the work completed. The petitioner’s allegation is that respondent No.1, 3 & 4 have spread bitumen at the site to make a false case of fulfillment of mandatory conditions envisaged in the NOC issued by the Police Commissioner, and therefore, this amounts to gross contempt and deliberate defiance of the order passed by this Court. Responding to the contempt petition on behalf of respondents No.1 and 4, reply has been submitted denying the allegations. Responding to the contempt petition on behalf of respondents No.1 and 4, reply has been submitted denying the allegations. In the return the respondents have stated that the petitioner, who is an existing dealer, is approaching from pillar to post by launching unnecessary litigation to somehow create obstacles in peaceful installation of retail outlet and the present petition has also been filed with that oblique motive against the installation of retail outlet. The respondents have categorically stated in the reply that the petitioner has launched as many as seven litigations to stall setting up of a retail outlet. That apart, it is also averred in the reply that the petitioner has lodged numerous complaints and representations with the sole object to ensure that he may continue to have monopoly in the market. In the reply, it is averred with clarity that petitioner got installed a transformer at a place where service road is to be constructed and this was yet another attempt to obstruct the installation of outlet. Doubting the bonafide of the petitioner, the respondents have also taken a dig at his conduct. For highlighting his conduct, the respondents have stated in the reply that the petitioner is guilty of concealing material facts from this Court. According to the respondents, after issuance of NOC he preferred a writ petition before learned Single Judge of this Court bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11986 of 2012, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and against the said verdict he also approached the Division Bench by way of intra-Court appeal, which was registered as S.B. Civil Special Appeal No.159/2013. The Special Appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court after recording its satisfaction about the NOC issued by the Police Commissionerate, Jodhpur. With these submissions, the respondents No.1 & 4 have prayed for dismissal of the contempt petition with exemplary costs. The second respondent has filed two separate replies to the contempt petition defending his actions. The first reply was submitted on 06.09.2013 and the second was submitted on 18.10.2013. In the first reply, the second respondent has refuted the allegation that he has committed violation of the relevant regulations of 2009. The second respondent has filed two separate replies to the contempt petition defending his actions. The first reply was submitted on 06.09.2013 and the second was submitted on 18.10.2013. In the first reply, the second respondent has refuted the allegation that he has committed violation of the relevant regulations of 2009. Joining the issue with the petitioner, the second respondent has averred in the reply that Assistant Police Commissioner and Tehsildar, Jodhpur never concluded that establishment of 7 meter wide road is not possible. Reiterating the submissions made by respondent No.1 & 4 that petitioner is indulging in unnecessary litigations, the second respondent has stated in the reply that he has not committed any illegality or acted dehors the directions issued by this Court. In the second return also, while reiterating his stand, the second respondent has made an attempt to clarify the position. The respondent No.3 has also filed reply to the contempt petition. In the return, the third respondent has made a categorical submission that the petitioner has made all attempts to create obstacles in the peaceful installation of retail outlet out of personal vengeance and business rivalry. Pointing out various litigations, which were launched at the behest of the petitioner for achieving his cherished mission of stalling the establishment of retail outlet, the third respondent has asserted that even he has filed a civil suit against JVVNL for not removing the transformer from the place where service road is to be constructed as per the conditions laid down in NOC dated 04.09.2012. The civil suit was also accompanied by application for temporary injunction but that effort of the petitioner proved abortive inasmuch as his prayer for temporary injunction was rejected. The relevant photographs have also been placed on record showing location of the transformer and the stone slabs which were put by the petitioner at the site nearby transformer to create hindrance in construction of service road. The third respondent has also highlighted checkered history about the litigation launched by the petitioner from time to time including the endeavor made by him to challenge the NOC, which was negated right up to Division Bench of this Court. The third respondent has also highlighted checkered history about the litigation launched by the petitioner from time to time including the endeavor made by him to challenge the NOC, which was negated right up to Division Bench of this Court. The third respondent has stated with clarity and precision that NOC was issued by the competent authority in accordance with law and subsequent to that the conditions laid down in the NOC have been followed in its letter and spirit, which is clearly discernible from the order passed by this Court on a Special Appeal (Writ) preferred by the petitioner himself. The respondent No.3 has also stated in the return that there is no semblance of proof that the directions issued by this Court have been flouted, as such, this contempt petition is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law for which the petitioner is liable to be saddled with exemplary costs, or in the alternative suo moto contempt proceedings be initiated against him for not adhering to the directions issued by this Court. The petitioner, thereafter, filed rejoinder on 22nd October 2013 reiterating his stand which was canvassed in the contempt petition. The same was further followed by another rejoinder filed on 13.01.2014. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. M.C. Bhoot, has vehemently argued that after issuance of NOC with a clear stipulation that 7 meter wide service road is to be constructed beyond determined road boundary, the said condition was given complete go-bye by the respondents by hatching a conspiracy collusively to flout deliberately the directions issued by the Court. Mr. Bhoot has urged that no land was available after the road boundary for construction of service road but second respondent in connivance with other respondents has made a blatant attempt to circumvent the directions issued by this Court for facilitating construction of 7 meter wide service road within the road boundary and therefore the respondents are guilty of committing gross contempt of this Court. Taking a dig at the conduct of the second respondent, learned Senior Counsel would contend that while issuing communication dated 01.11.2012 the second respondent has deliberately eschewed the communications Exs.5 & 6 and thereby he has committed gross contempt of the directions issued by this Court. Mr. Taking a dig at the conduct of the second respondent, learned Senior Counsel would contend that while issuing communication dated 01.11.2012 the second respondent has deliberately eschewed the communications Exs.5 & 6 and thereby he has committed gross contempt of the directions issued by this Court. Mr. Bhoot has also contended that respondent No.1, 3 & 4 by spreading bitumen at the site have made an affirmative attempt to depict false case of fulfillment of mandatory conditions insisted by the competent authority while issuing NOC and this sort of act and omission on their part is a glaring example of contumacious act in utter disregard to the orders passed by this Court, therefore, appropriate action for contempt is warranted against all the respondents. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.S. Singhvi appearing for the third respondent has strenuously urged that the petitioner has abused the process of law by launching this contempt petition and his sole object is to thwart installation of a new fuel station for which requisite NOC has been issued by the competent authority. Mr. Singhvi has urged that the petitioner has launched as many as six frivolous litigations to create obstacles and hindrances in the peaceful installation of retail outlet and for this object he has misused judicial forums, therefore, no indulgence can be granted to him in this contempt petition. Mr. Singhvi has submitted that there is no semblance of proof that the third respondent has deliberately or willfully disobeyed or circumvented the order passed by this Court, and therefore, no action under the Act of 1971 is warranted against the respondent. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Singhvi would contend that the bone of contention is the NOC granted to the fourth respondent for installation of retail outlet vide Ex.3, which has frustrated the cherished mission of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner has resorted to such wholly unwarranted contempt proceedings. For substantiating this plea, Mr. Singhvi has submitted that after issuance of NOC the petitioner challenged the same by way of preferring a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11986 of 2012 but the mission of the petitioner proved abortive and the petition was dismissed. For substantiating this plea, Mr. Singhvi has submitted that after issuance of NOC the petitioner challenged the same by way of preferring a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11986 of 2012 but the mission of the petitioner proved abortive and the petition was dismissed. He further submits that after dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner preferred intra-Court appeal and the same was also dismissed and after dismissal of intra-Court appeal he has launched this contempt petition while concealing all these material facts from this Court, and therefore, the contempt petition is liable to be thrown away solely on the ground of the conduct of the petitioner for concealment of material facts. Placing heavy reliance on the verdict of Division Bench, Mr. Singhvi has urged that the Division Bench while considering all the materials which has been placed before this Court in this contempt petition has found that issuance of NOC and subsequent development has not violated the mandatory guidelines issued by the Indian Road Congress under IRC 2009 and thereafter the Division Bench has dismissed the intra-court appeal with the following observations : “This Court for its own satisfaction, by order dated 07.05.2013 directed the Police Commissionerate, Jodhpur to make available the entire record on the basis of which the “No Objection Certificate” impugned was issued. The record concerned is made available to us for our perusal, we found that the Police Commissionerate before issuing “No Objection Certificate” made all necessary inquiry and after taking into consideration different aspects, issued the No Objection Certificate with definite conditions. The conditions so imposed are nothing but for adherence of the mandatory guidelines issued by the Indian Road Congress under IRC-2009. A bare perusal of the conditions makes it abundantly clear that in the event of their violation, the “No Objection Certificate” granted shall stand cancelled. The petitioner-appellant or the authority competent, if at any stage finds any violation of the mandatory conditions prescribed by the IRC-2009, Government of Rajasthan and by this Court by the judgment dated 2.1.2012, then necessary action can be taken against the petroleum company and its outlet dealer. But no such eventuality at the moment exists, therefore, at this stage we are of the view that learned Single Judge rightly refused to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court as claimed by the petitioner-appellant. Mr. But no such eventuality at the moment exists, therefore, at this stage we are of the view that learned Single Judge rightly refused to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court as claimed by the petitioner-appellant. Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, taking exception to the conduct of the petitioner has urged that the whole endeavour of the petitioner is to deprive a poor scheduled caste lady to earn her livelihood by running a retail petrol outlet. In this background Mr. Singhvi has submitted that besides launching various litigations the petitioner has also indulged in some dubious tactics to create hindrance in construction of service road and for that purpose photographs Annex.R/1/2 depicting the stone slabs allegedly put by him near the transformer installed by the JVVNL have been shown with full emphasis. Mr. Singhvi has submitted that the whole endeavour of the petitioner by launching multiple litigations is to dissuade the third respondent from installation of retail outlet at the site so that he can enjoy monopoly. Mr. Singhvi has submitted that in the matter of civil contempt, the concern of the Court is whether any contempt of court is committed by the erring party and if so what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such proceedings, it is not appropriate to adjudicate any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the rival parties. In support of this contention, Mr. Singhvi has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Midnapore peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Chunilal Nanda and Others [(2006) 5 SCC 399]. Mr. Sunil Beniwal, appearing for respondent No.1 & 4, while adopting the arguments of Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, has urged that the allegation against the respondents about disobedience of the orders passed by this Court are wholly untenable. Mr. Beniwal has urged that there is no question of deliberate and willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court and therefore contempt petition merits rejection. Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, has urged that the allegation against the respondents about disobedience of the orders passed by this Court are wholly untenable. Mr. Beniwal has urged that there is no question of deliberate and willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court and therefore contempt petition merits rejection. Mr. Beniwal has also argued that the service road has been completed as per IRC norms which is clearly evident from the order passed by the Division Bench for which the petitioner has conceded before the learned Single Judge at the time of disposal of the writ petition and therefore there is no question of deliberate defiance of the order passed by this Court warranting action against the respondents under the Act of 1971. Taking serious exception to the conduct of the petitioner, Mr. Beniwal has placed reliance on letter dated 5th of January 2012 (Annex.R/1/1) addressed by the petitioner to the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, wherein while objecting to issuance of NOC to BPCL, the petitioner has hurled threats to the proposed construction of service road. The complete text of letter Annex.R/1/1 is reproduced as under:- lsok esa Jh eku dfe’uj lkgc tks/kiqj 'kgjA fo"k;%& ch-ih-lh-,y- }kjk xkao ikyM+h f[kfpa;ku [kljk uEcj uEcj 125@2 ,e-Mh-vkj- 104 fdeh 5-852 esa isVªksy iEi yxkus ckcr vukifr izek.k ugh nsus gsrqA egksn;] fuosnu gS fd ch-ih-lh-,y- }kjk xkao ikyMh f[kfpa;ku [kljk uEcj uEcj 125@2 ,e-Mh-vkj- 104 fdeh 5-852 esa isVªksy iEi yxkus ckcr vukifr izek.k gsrq vkosnu fd;k x;k gS mDr izLrkfor ch-ih-lh-,y- isVªksy iEi o LFkkfir vkbZ-vks-lh-,y- isVªksy iEi ds e/; 7 ehVj pkSMh lfoZl jksM dk izksfotu fd;k x;k gSA mDr nksuks izLrkfor o LFkkfir isVªksy iEi ds e/; esjk IykWV 34 QqV 270 QqV esa esjk IykWV vk;k gqvk gSA esjk mDr IykWV esa vkus tkus dk jkLrk ,dek= ;gh gSA vr% mDr lfoZl jksM cukrs gS rks esjk lM+d ls lh/kk lEidZ dV tk;sxkA ftlls esjs IykWV ds vkxs ls lfoZl jksM ugha ns ldrs ftlls esjk jksM ls lh/kk lEidZ ugha dVk tk;sxkA vr% eSa lfoZl jksM ugh cukus nqxkaA vr% vkils fuosnu gS fd mDr ch-ih-lh-,y- }kjk izLrkfor isVªksy iEi dh ,u-vks-lh- (vukifr izek.k) ugh fn;k tk;asA izfrfyfi%& 1- tks/kiqj dfe’uj 2- izknsf’kd dk;kZy; lkykokl ch-ih-lh-,y- 3- tks/kiqj ,l-ih- xzkeh.k Hkonh; fujt dPNokgk iq= Jh t;flag dPNokgk :ikorksa dk ckl lqjlkxj tks/kiqjA With these submissions, Mr. Beniwal has urged that all the litigations launched by the petitioner including present contempt petition are actuated with malice and therefore the contempt petition merits dismissal with exemplary costs. Mr. Mukesh Dave appearing for respondent No.2 has defended the action of the respondent and contended that the respondent has highest regards for the orders of this Court and has not circumvented or disobeyed the directions issued by this Court warranting action under the Act of 1971. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Upon perusal of the pleadings and annexed documents in conjunction with the impugned order and on appreciation of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, there is no semblance of proof that respondents have deliberately and willfully disobeyed or circumvented the order passed by this Court. In civil contempt, as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Act of 1971, an act or omission, which is complained by the suitor against the opponent has to be deliberate and wilful which can be ascertained without thorough probe into the matter. It is trite that wilful or intentional violation of Court's order is sine-qua-non for initiation of a proceeding under the Act of 1971. From the tenor of the order passed by this Court, it is crystal clear that while concurring with the submission made by the learned counsel for the BPCL, counsel for the petitioner has agreed for disposal of the writ petition for facilitating establishment of fuel station at the proposed location in strict adherence to Article 4.6.3 and 4.6.4 of IRC 12-2009 and thereupon in the same terms NOC was issued by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur on 4th of September 2012. A cumulative reading of Article 4.6.3 and 4.6.4 of IRC 12-2009 also makes it abundantly clear that issuance of NOC and all subsequent actions for its implementation have not prima facie violated the norms for installation of new fuel station nearby an existing fuel station. It appears that cause of grievance of the petitioner is not adherence of IRC-2009 but to thwart and throttle the very establishment of a new fuel station at the location proposed, which is nearby the fuel station of the petitioner. It appears that cause of grievance of the petitioner is not adherence of IRC-2009 but to thwart and throttle the very establishment of a new fuel station at the location proposed, which is nearby the fuel station of the petitioner. This inference of the Court is reinforced from the fact that the NOC issued to BPCL for setting up of a fuel station vide Ex.3 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of preferring a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11986 of 2012. However, the said effort of the petitioner proved abortive and therefore continuing his pursuit against setting up of a fuel station nearby his fuel station, the petitioner preferred intra-court appeal before the Division Bench. Before the Division Bench, the very issuance of NOC was contested and the Division Bench after considering the matter threadbare including the mandatory guidelines IRC 2009 has recorded its definite finding in its order dated 10th of May 2013 that neither there is any infirmity in the NOC nor the subsequent implementation of the same and accordingly dismissed the intra-court appeal and made observations quoted supra. Launching of the present contempt petition with alacrity after dismissal of intra-Court appeal and pursuing it vociferously without a whisper in the pleadings clearly and unequivocally fortifies the inference that enthusiasm of the petitioner is not in maintaining the dignity and majesty of the Court but not to countenance setting up of a new fuel station nearby his existing fuel station. The solemn belief of this Court is that contempt jurisdiction cannot be exercised for such collateral purposes as these proceedings are not akin an intra party or adversary litigation. Slapping as many as six litigations against an aspiring lady entrepreneur belonging to privileged class of the society is a matter of grave concern and I am aghast at such an obsession of the petitioner after perusing the letter dated 05.01.2012 (Annex.R/1/1) quoted supra particularly with the recitals ^^vr% eSa lfoZl jksM ugh cukus nqxkaA** A very vital fact that NOC issued by the competent authority was subject matter of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner and thereafter intra-court appeal preferred by him ought to have been pleaded in the contempt petition and this sort of omission on the part of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. Eschewing all these facts by the petitioner further strengthens the belief of this Court that laying of the instant petition is not bonafide. On a close scrutiny of the factual gamut of the case, this Court feels that number of litigations launched at the behest of petitioner including the present contempt petition is a classical example of the age-old principle known as damnum sine injuria. In other words, when a party set up a rival business enterprise then one party already engaged in that business cannot make a complaint that his rights have been infringed by the rival business enterprise as he would face stiff competition. The aforesaid phrase would mean that there is damage but without causing any actionable injury. While exercising contempt jurisdiction, a Court is expected to see that it is to be resorted for keeping administration of justice pure and undefiled. The very purpose of exercising contempt jurisdiction is only for upholding the dignity and majesty of judicial system that exists. Therefore, the Courts are usually keeping restraint in exercising contempt jurisdiction by taking a pragmatic view rather than a pedantic and an idealistic approach on such issues. A contempt jurisdiction being quasi-judicial in nature requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for indictment of an individual for commission of the act of contempt of Court. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chottu Ram Vs. Urvashi Gulati & Anr. [ (2001) 7 SCC 530 ], while examining the burden of proof and standard of proof in contempt proceedings, has made following observations in Para 2 of the verdict : “As regards the burden and standard of proof, the common legal phraseology “he who asserts must prove” has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. As regards the “standard of proof”, be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi-criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. There cannot be two opinions that any act which significantly derogates the dignity and authority of the Court or which tends to impede or frustrate the administration of justice, cannot be tolerated. There cannot be two opinions that any act which significantly derogates the dignity and authority of the Court or which tends to impede or frustrate the administration of justice, cannot be tolerated. However, contempt jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly for which mere infraction is not enough. Gravamen of contempt is intentional violation of the order passed by a Court. Even in case prima facie two views are possible in construing an order, then also a party interpreting the same while subscribing another view cannot be held guilty for defiance of the directions issued by the Court willfully exposing erring party for action under the Act of 1971. Reliance in this behalf can be profitably made to a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Parents Association of Students Vs. M.A. Khan and Anr. [ (2009) 2 SCC 641 ]. If the afflictions of the petitioner as projected in the contempt petition and canvassed before the Court are examined objectively then it will ipso facto reveal that endeavour of the petitioner is to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to merits of the dispute between the parties afresh which has already been decided. In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, it is not permissible. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Midnapore peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra) while examining the scope of contempt proceedings has clarified that adjudication of rights and liabilities are totally outside the proceedings for contempt. Hon'ble Apex Court made following observations in Para 20 & 21 of the verdict : 20. In the circumstances, the court ought to have proceeded to consider whether there was any wilful disobedience of the order dated 9.4.1997, on the part of S K Das and if so, punish him for contempt. As S.K. Das was nowhere in the picture when the order dated 9.4.1997 was passed in the writ petition, and as he was appointed as an independent Enquiry Officer only by an order dated 5.1.1988 and as there was a complaint about the non-cooperation by the first respondent, (delinquent employee), it is doubtful whether there was any case for even issuing a show cause notice to him. Be that as it may. We are not concerned with the issue of show cause notice to S.K. Das in this appeal. Be that as it may. We are not concerned with the issue of show cause notice to S.K. Das in this appeal. What is relevant to be noticed is that the learned Single Judge could not have made an order in the contempt proceedings, that Sri S.K. Das had, by his conduct, disqualified himself to be the Enquiry Officer and that he shall cease to be the Enquiry Officer and that another Enquiry Officer shall be appointed. 21. There was also no justification for the further direction by the learned Single Judge in the contempt proceedings, that too by an interlocutory order, that the complainant should immediately and forthwith be reinstated into the service of the Bank, and shall be deemed to be in the service of the Bank all through, that the employee shall not be prevented in any manner from discharging his duties and that he shall be paid all arrears of salary within four weeks, and that the suspension order shall be deemed to have been revoked. These were totally outside the scope of the proceedings for contempt and amounted to adjudication of rights and liabilities not in issue in the contempt proceedings. At all events, on the facts and circumstances, there was no disobedience, breach or neglect on the part of the Bank and its President and Secretary, to provoke the court to issue such directions, even assuming that such directions could be issued in the course of the contempt proceedings. Hence, directions (2) and (3) and the direction relating to revocation of suspension are liable to be set aside. Thus, viewed from any angle, in my considered opinion, no case for deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court is made out against the respondent contemnors warranting action for civil contempt against them under the Act of 1971. Resultantly, this petition for contempt merits rejection and same is accordingly dismissed. Notices are discharged.