- (1.) THE petitioner was a Biswedar in Tehsil Tibbi (district Sri Ganganagar) whose land, after coming into force of the Zamidari and Biswedari Abolition Act (for short, 'the Act') vested in the State Government on November 15, 1959. After the vesting of the land in the State Government, the application applied for allotment of fifty Bighas of Khudkasht land under the provisions of the Act in the year 1959. This application remained pending with the respondents and after a prolonged litigation, the Division Bench of this Court in a D. B. Civil Writ Petition, filed by the petitioner on July 19,1991, directed the State Government to allot to the petitioner the Khudkasht land upto the limit of fifty Bighas as per the Rules within twelve months from the date of the judgment. THE Collector, Sri Ganganagar, inspite of a specific direction given by the Division Bench of this Court, did not allot the land to the petitioner, rather ,by its order dated August 17, 1991, granted time to the Government Pleader to file a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order dated July 29, 1991, passed by the Board of Revenue. Dissatisfied with the order dated August 16, 1991, passed by the Collector, Shri Ganganagar, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court. This writ petition was allowed on January 20, 1992, and the respondents were "directed to make allotment of fifty Bighas of Khudkasht land in favour of the petitioner before July 18, 1992, in Chak 2 NWN or within the Tehsils of Tibbi or Hanumangarh, as the land is available with the respondent for allotment in these two Tehsils. " After the order dated January 20, 1992, passed by this Court, the petitioner and other fourteen persons, in whose favour the judgment was delivered, made application before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, for the allotment of fifty Bighas of Khudkasht land in their favour in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. THE Collector, Sri Ganganagar, vide its order dated July 2, 1992, in clear violation of the directions given by this Court, made allotment of fifty Bighas of command land to each of the fifteen applicants in colonisation Tehsil of Nachna in II Phase of Indira Gandhi Nahar Project. When the allotment was not made to the petitioner as per the directions given by this Court, the petitioner, therefore, moved the present contempt petition bringing it to the notice of this Court that the respondent-contemnor Shri K. S. Galundia the Collector, Shri Ganganagar, has flouted the order passed by this Court and, therefore, contempt proceedings may be initiated against him and he should be adequately punish for the same. THE notices of the contempt petition were issued to the contemnor Shri K. S. Galundia, the Collector, Shri Ganganagar who appeared in person and filed his reply. In the reply filed by the contemnor, he tried to justify his action in not complying with the directions given by this Court and stated that the allotment has been made as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated July 19, 1991, and a special appeal against the order of the Single Bench was filed which is still pending in this Court. Though in paragraph number 6 of the reply, it has been stated that the special appeal is still pending in the High Court, but in the concluding paragraph of the reply, relating to the prayer-clause, it has been mentioned that the special appeal, filed by the State, has been dismissed but the State Government is likely to take a decision to file Special Leave Petition against this order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the limitation to file such Special Leave Petition has not yet expired. THE respondent, in the first paragraph of the reply, has, also, tendered unconditional apology.
(2.) THE short question, which requires consideration in the present case is: whether the respondent has flouted the order passed by this Court and acted in clear violation of the directions given by this Court and he is, therefore, guilty of the contempt of the Court? For constituting the offence of the contempt of the Court, wilful conduct of the contemnor is the primary and basic ingredient. It has, therefore, to be seen : whether the respondent has wilfully disobeyed, ignored or by-passed the judgment passed by this Court and did not comply with the directions issued by this Court? While pronouncing the judgment, this Court specifically directed the respondent to make allotment of fifty Bighas of Khudkasht land to the petitioner in Chak 2 NWN or within the Tehsil of Tibbi or Hanumangarh, as the land is available with the respondent for allotment in these two Tehsils. THE order passed by this Court is clear and unambiguous and the respondent-contemnor had the notice of the terms of the order. THE respondent, while making allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner, vide order dated 2-7-1992, tried to consider the legality and validity of the order passed by this Court as if he was sitting in appeal and observed as under: - "the order of the Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court has already been challenged in Division Bench which could not come-up for hearing. According to me, the matter is sub-judice. THErefore, I do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has no choice except to allot the land of Chak 2 NWN in Tehsil Hanumangarh. " In the judgment, he further observed as under: - "without meaning any disrespect to the observations made by the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 20-1-1992, I am of the view that the land of Chak 2 NWN, Tehsil Hanumangarh, does not fall in Category IV of Section 13 (1) of the Rajasthan Zamidari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959, and, therefore, it cannot be allotted to the petitioner. " ". . . It is an admitted fact that the land of Chack 2 NWN is required by the Ministry of Defence. THEy have revived their earlier intention for allotment, on which correspondence is pending between the State Government and the Ministry of Defence. Looking to the public interest, also, it will not be advisable to allot this land to the applicant. " The respondent, in reply to the contempt notice, tried to take shelter of the judgment dated 19-7-1991, passed by the Division Bench of this Court. In the reply, the respondent stated as under : - "the order dated 20-1-1992, of the Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court and the order dated 19-7-1991 of the learned Division Bench of the High Court were on the same subject and were at variance with each other and, therefore, according to the established judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the undersigned comply with the order of the Higher Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. " ". . . . The learned Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court had given directions vide its order dated 19-7-1991, to make allotment to the petitioner before July 18, 1992. The learned Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 20. 1. 1992, gave directions for allotment of the land to the petitioner in Chak 2 NWN or within the Tehsils of Tibbi or Hanumangarh. Against this order, the State Government has preferred an appeal before the learned Division Bench of the High Court which was pending. In view of the above position, there was no option before the respondent but to make allotment as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court given in its order dated 19-7-1991. " ". . . . It is further prayed that the Special Appeal filed by the State Government against the order dated 20-1-1992, have since been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide its orders dated 4-8-1992, 27-8-1992, 1-9-1992, 3-9-1992 and 4. 9. 92, but the State Government is likely to take a decision to file Special Leave Petition against these orders in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the limitation to file the same has not yet expired. " The Division Bench of this Court, in its judgment dated 19-7-1991, directed the respondent to make allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner to the extent of fifty Bighas of land as per the Rules. The Division Bench in this judgment did not give any direction where the allotment of the land is to be made. This judgment of the Division Bench was taken note of, considered and applied by the Single Bench in its judgment dated 20. 1. 92, and directions were issued only with respect to which the judgment of the Division Bench was silent. A specific issue was raised before the Single Judge that the land is available in Chak 2 NWN while this issue was not under consideration before the Division Bench. The respondent's case was that the land is not available with the State Government for allotment. After consideration of the rival submissions, this Court held that the respondent has land available with it in Chak 2 NWN and, therefore, a specific direction was issued to the respondent to make allotment of the land to the petitioner in Chak 2 NWN or in the Tehsils of Tibbi or Hanumangarh. The respondent, to whom judicial directions were issued by the Highest Court of the State, cannot take upon himself the responsibility of judging the legality, validity or correctness of the judgment passed by this Court and he was not expected to ignore the directions issued by this Court. He was obliged to carry out the directions issued by the High Court. If he bonafide felt that the order is erroneous or required any modification, the only remedy available to him was to approach this Court by way of a review petition for modification of the order or to file a special appeal against the order of the Single Bench before the Division Bench of this Court. The State filed special appeal against the judgment dated 20-1-1992, passed by the Single Bench, which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated August 4, 1992. Even the Special Leave Petition, filed by the State, were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 11- 12-1992. After the dismissal of the three Special Leave Petitions, the respondent-contemnor passed the order on 14-12-1992, making the allotment of fifty Bighas of Khudkasht land in favour of the petitioner. In that order, also, the respondent has mentioned that the Advocate on Record has advised the State to file review petition in the three Special Leave Petitions which have been dismissed and, therefore, the order of the Single Bench should be implemented subject to the final verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter. Today an additional affidavit has been filed by the contemnor stating therein that the order dated 20-1-1992, has been complied with and physical possession of the land situated in Chak 2 NWN Tehsil Hanumangarh, has been given to the petitioner and after obtaining the possession from the Tehsildar (Revenue), Hanumangarh, the petitioner is actually ploughing the field on the spot. It has been further mentioned in the additional affidavit that the land allotted to the petitioner is no involved in any dispute. The matter was finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, but inspite of that, the compliance of the order has been made by the respondent-contemnor in a conditional way and while making the allotment, it has been observed that the allotment has been made subject to the final verdict of the Supreme Court in this case and other related cases. From the facts and circumstances of the case, as mentioned above, it can, therefore, be conclusively said that the respondent-contemnor Mr. K. S. Galundia, the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court which has rendered him guilty for the contempt of this Court. He intentionally and deliberately avoided and circumvented to comply with the directions issued by this Court and denied the petitioner the just relief which was granted to him by the Court. The respondent-contemnor was obliged to obey the directions of the Court unless the same are set-aside. The functionaries of the State Government to whom the directions are issued by the Court, are obliged to follow them. The respondent -contemnor cannot be allowed to interpret the order passed by this Court in the manner which suits him. The correctness or legality of the directions can be judged by the superior Court and not by the officer to whom the directions have been issued. The respondent contemnor acted in a flagrant violation of the directions issued by this Court and brought the administration of justice in disrespect. The conduct of the respondent-contemnor in not following the directions of this Court and passing the order dated 2. 7. 1992, in flagrant violation of the judgment passed by this Court, cannot be said to be bonafide and unintentional act of the respondent nor is it a result of misinterpretation of the judgment as has been alleged by him; but the action of the respondent is clearly wilful and intentional. The order was unambiguous and clear in terms and the respondent has wilfully and deliberately ignored the directions issued by this Court and passed the order in opposition of the directions issued by the Court and he is, therefore, liable to be punished for the contempt of this Court. The next question, which requires consideration in the present case is; whether the apology tendered by the respondent-contemnor be accepted or not? The apology tendered by the respondent can be accepted only if it is unequivocal, sincere, bonafide and voluntary and is indicative of repentance remorse and contrition and not a mere formality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. B. Sanghi vs. The State of Punjab and Haryana (1), while dealing with the question : whether the apology tendered by the respondent should be accepted or not, observed as under : - "it is well settled that an apology is not a weapon of defence to pulge the guilty of the offence; nor is it intended to operate as universal panecea, but it is intended to be evidence of real con-triteness. " The respondent, in the present case, has attempted to justify his act by giving wrong and illegitimate reasons and his conduct was clearly malafide. He tried to ignore the order passed by this Court. The two orders passed by the respondent and the reply to the contempt petition submitted by him, show that the respondent has scant regard to the order passed by this Court. He acted in flagrant violation of the direction given by this Court. Even after the rejection of the Special Leave Petitions by the Supreme Court, the contemnor has passed a conditional order which, also, shows that he has no regard to the order passed by the Court. The apology tendered by the respondent is far from sincere and is without any remorse or regret and it has been made only as a device to escape the rigor of law. Accepting the apology in such a case would amount to give licence to the respondent to commit contempt of Court with impunity and it would be a traversity of justice if such gross contempt of the Court goes unpunished. I am conscious of the fact that if the apology of the contemnor-respondent is not accepted and he is convicted then it will damage the service career of the respondent. When the contemnor has wilfully and deliberately refused to comply with the directions issued by this Court then the Court should not hesitate in such matter in convicting the contemnor. The allotment order dated 14. 12. 1992, passed by the contemnor after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, clearly shows that the contemnor has no respect to the Court's orders. The contemnor, therefore, does not deserve any leniency on the ground that his service career will be ruined.
(3.) THE Court has a duty to protect and vindicate the rights and interests of the litigating public in the due administration of justice and to punish the guilty for the contempt so that the administration of justice is not obstructed or interfered with. In the general interest of the community it is imperative that the authority of the Courts should not be imperilled. If the directions of the Courts of Law will be so flouted and their authority is ignored and is supplanted then the very structure of the ordered life will be at risk. Instances of non-compliance of the Court's directions are being multiplied and it is, therefore, necessary to curb such tendency so that there may not be any recurrence of such type of conduct. THE Courts are generally slow in using their contempt jurisdiction and it is highly painful for punishing for committing the contempt of the Court, but when such a responsible officer of the State Government, who is the Head of the District Administration, shows scant regard to the judicial directions issued by the Court and deliberately and malafide refused to follow it by observing that the land in Chak 2 NWN cannot be allotted to the petitioner then such painful duty has to be performed by the Court to up-hold the dignity and prestige of the Court, otherwise it would vitally shake and impair the judicial system of administration of justice as well as the faith of the people in the Courts. Officers of the State Government, howsoever higher they may be placed, are expected to exercise utmost vigilance in complying with the order passed by the Court. THE respondent, in the present case, has show a lack of respect of the Court's order and acted in opposition to the directions issued by the Court and brought the administration of law in disrepute and, therefore, imposition of fine in such case will not be sufficient and will not meet the ends of justice. In the result, the respondent Mr. K. S. Galundia is held guilty for committing the contempt of this Court, convicted under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1974, and is sentenced to undergo seven days' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo seven days' simple imprisonment. The respondent is allowed one month's time to deposit the amount of fine. .;