Arvind Kumar Goyal: Chhattisgarh HC holds contempt lies against officers, not NHAI

Ratio / rule laid down

A contempt proceeding is in personam and cannot be prosecuted against a statutory authority or body corporate. A command addressed to such an entity is treated as a command to the persons officially responsible for its affairs, and liability requires identification of the officer entrusted with compliance and proof of wilful disobedience.

Why this matters for lawyers

• Array individuals, not the authority: A contempt petition alleging breach by NHAI, the State or another authority should name the officer or officers said to have disobeyed the order in their individual capacity.
• Plead responsibility specifically: Identify the person in charge of the subject matter, the duty to implement the order, and the date or dates of alleged non-compliance. Rule 349 requires these particulars in precise language.
• Do not rely on Section 12(5): The provision concerning a company and responsible directors, managers or officers does not make the corporate or statutory entity itself a proper contemnor in an in-personam proceeding.
• Preserve a corrective route: Dismissal for defective impleadment need not end the matter; the Court reserved liberty to institute a fresh petition against the concerned officers.

Facts

Arvind Kumar Goyal filed CONT No. 618 of 2026 alleging that the order dated 8.10.2024 in WPC No. 529 of 2023 had not been obeyed. That order directed the National Highways Authority of India to redress his grievance within 90 days of receiving the order.

The petition arrayed NHAI through its Chairman as respondent No. 1, along with several named officials. The petitioner argued that Section 12(5) read with its Explanation to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 made NHAI a necessary party.

Issues

• Whether contempt proceedings are proceedings in personam requiring the alleged contemnor to be impleaded individually.
• Whether a statutory authority or body corporate, such as NHAI, can itself be prosecuted for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
• Whether the petition, as framed, could proceed where the concerned officials had also been impleaded.

Court's Reasoning

The Court began from the character of contempt jurisdiction: it is concerned with contumacious conduct and deliberate default, and is quasi-criminal because a finding of wilful disobedience carries serious civil consequences. The person charged must therefore be identified, and must be shown to have been entrusted with the duty of implementing the order.

The Court treated the command to an authority or body corporate as, in substance, a command to the officials responsible for conducting its affairs. Article 300, which permits proceedings by suit against the State or Union, could not be transplanted into contempt jurisdiction. The Court referred to *Tarafatullah Mandal & others v. S.N. Maitra and others* and *R. Muthukrishnan Vs. The Collector Of Tiruvallur District*, both of which emphasised that contempt is against a natural person, not an authority.

Section 12(5) and its Explanation did not alter that conclusion. The provision may attribute contempt to responsible officers of a company where the statutory conditions are established; it does not convert the authority into a proper contemnor in proceedings that are otherwise in personam. Rule 349 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2007 reinforces the requirement by directing the petitioner to state the name of the person charged and the date or dates of the alleged contempt.

Because NHAI was neither a necessary nor a proper party, impleadment of respondent No. 1 was held not maintainable. The petition was dismissed as framed, with liberty to file a fresh petition against only the concerned officer or officers.

Key Takeaways

• Contempt proceedings against an authority must be directed at the individual officer responsible for compliance.
• Impleading officials in their official roles does not cure a petition that treats the authority itself as the contemnor.
• The petitioner must establish both responsibility for implementation and wilful disobedience; mere institutional non-compliance is insufficient.
• Rule 349 requires precise pleading of the charged person's identity and the date or dates of contempt.
• A dismissal for improper constitution may be accompanied by liberty to institute a fresh, properly framed petition.

Important Observations

The judgment separates the entity addressed in the original writ order from the person answerable in contempt. That distinction is especially important where administrative responsibility may shift between office-holders: the contempt petition must identify the officer whose conduct, omission or neglect is alleged to be wilful, rather than proceed on the status of the authority alone.

What Remains Unresolved

The Court did not decide whether the order dated 8.10.2024 was in fact disobeyed, whether the alleged default was wilful, or which officer was responsible. Those questions remain open in any fresh petition properly brought against the concerned person or persons.

Precedents discussed

• Tarafatullah Mandal & others v. S.N. Maitra and othersAIR 1952 Calcutta 919Referred to

  described contempt as a proceeding in personam

• R. Muthukrishnan Vs. The Collector Of Tiruvallur DistrictAIR 2011 Madras 186Referred to

  held that the person alleged to have committed contempt must be made party respondent in person

Source judgment: Arvind Kumar Goyal v. National Highways Authority Of India Through Chairman, Sector