The Court held that the directions issued by the division bench were “crystal clear” and the respondents (contemnors) were expected to effectuate necessary amendments to the formula by working out the amount payable to each cluster individually.
“In the light of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that in the present case, all the four pre-conditions for holding the respondents guilty of contempt are made out,” the court concluded.
It added,
“While exercising contempt jurisdiction this Court has to keep in mind that the very purpose of the law of contempt is meant to serve public interest and build confidence in the judicial process. In the present case, the respondents, despite having repeatedly failed in their challenge to the order passed by the Division Bench are deliberately attempting to circumvent and undermine the unambiguous directions issued by the Division Bench. It is therefore necessary to deal with the respondents with a heavy hand.”
Source: Barandbench
