CALLA, J. - (1.) IN Writ Petition No. 1737/90 the final orders were passed on 8. 8. 91. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under : - "the writ petitions, is, therefore, allowed and it is directed that the petitioner's appearance in the 10th Standard Examination in the Session 1989-90 will be made clear by the respondent Board and the mark-sheet will be issued to him and he will be treated to have passed the Examination of 10th Standard in the Session 1989-90 like all other candidates. No order as to costs. "
(2.) THE aforesaid order was passed after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the other respondents including the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer through its Secretary being respondent No. 1. THE aforesaid directions given by the Court were with regard to the petitioner's Examination of 10th Standard in the Session of 1989-90. The petitioner has stated in the contempt petition that after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment the petitioner appeared before the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer alongwith an application dated 1. 10. 91 and the certified copy of the judgment dated 8. 8. 91. The Secretary put a note that he had received the certified copy of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 8. 8. 91. The petitioner has also stated that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 20/- for obtaining the mark- sheet through Receipt No. 615/30722 dated 26. 9. 91. Despite this the mark-sheet was not issued to the petitioner. Against the judgment dated 8. 8. 91, the Board preferred a Special Appeal before the Division Bench being D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 496/91. The appeal was preferred on 4. 10. 91 and notices were issued on 13. 10. 91 as to why this special appeal should not be admitted and disposed of. The appeal was decided by the Division Bench finally on 6. 8. 92. During the pendency of the appeal no stay order had been passed by the Division Bench staying the operation of this Court's order dated 8. 8. 91. Thus, there was no stay order whatsoever against the order dated 8. 8. 91. The appeal as well as the stay application were dismissed on 6. 8. 92. The Division Bench had also directed to declare the result of the respondent within a week's time. Mr. Ajay Rastogi submits that a week's time had expired on 13. 8. 92, but the result was conveyed to the petitioner and the mark-sheet was sent vide letter dated 18. 8. 92 by Registered Post. This contempt petition was filed on 3. 4. 92 in which the notices were ordered to be issued on 19. 5. 92. However, the notices which were issued for the date of 4. 9. 92 on 11. 8. 92 were served upon Shri Chandra Shekhar Bansal on 12. 8. 92. The reply dated 20. 10. 92 was filed in this case on behalf of the respondent to this contempt petition on 16. 11. 92. Thereafter, the matter came up before this Court more than once. Even on 30. 10. 92 & 16. 11. 92 despite the fact that the presence of the respondent, Shri Chandra Shekhar Bansal was required to be given in person, he did not care to appear on any of the dates even after the service of the notices of this contempt petition on him way back on 12. 8. 92 nor any application was moved on his behalf seeking exemption from personal appearance. Thereafter, the matter came up before this Court on 12. 1. 93 and after having heard to Mr. Ajay Rastogi, when I was inclined to issue non-bailable warrant to secure his presence, Mr. Rastogi submitted that he would produce the respondent in person before this Court on 19. 1. 93 and this is how the respondent has appeared in person today before this Court in and while, the matter was being heard, an additional reply to the contempt petition on behalf of the respondent was filed and, even, now a writing has been filed during the course of the dictation of this order mentioning therein that the respondent hereby tenders the unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court with the prayer that this application may kindly be taken on record. Having heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Pareek, Mr. Ajay Rastogi and Mr. Chandra Shekhar Bansal and having gone through the pleadings etc. , I am of the opinion that the sole defence which has been put in this case on behalf of the respondent for not complying this Court's order dated 8. 8. 91 for a period of more than 1 year is that the respondent had preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and, therefore, notwithstanding the fact that there was no stay order by the Division Bench, the order was not required to be complied with. This Court's order dated 8. 8. 91 has throughout been treated with contempt by the respondent. The respondent has shown a scant regard for the orders passed by this Court and has deliberately avoided the compliance of this Court's order on the jejune ground that an appeal had been preferred before the Division Bench. The appeal was also dismissed on 16. 8. 92 and while, dismissing the appeal the Division Bench had also directed to declare the result of the respondent within a week and it is only after the dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench that the result was declared by communicating the same through a letter dated 18. 8. 92. I am of the considered opinion that the filing of the appeal before the next higher Court against any judgment or order is no ground for avoiding the compliance of the same and in the instant case in the reply it has been pleaded that the order was not complied with because the appeal had been preferred before the Division Bench.
(3.) IN the additional reply apart from mentioning the facts relating to some other matter, it has been stated by the respondent that he was suffering from the Cancer Disease and he remained on leave w. e. f. 7. 3. 92 and was admitted in Bombay Hospital on 30. 3. 92 and he was successfully operated there and was later on discharged from the Hospital on 14. 4. 92 and after taking some rest he joined the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer on 8. 6. 92. Even if, that be so, there is no explanation whatsoever for the period prior to 7. 3. 92 and after 8. 6. 92. He had the knowledge of this Court's order dated 8. 8. 91 much before he proceeded on leave and he can't wriggle out from this factual position because the respondent itself had preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 8. 8. 91 was back on 4. 10. 91 itself and thus, in the reply, I don't find any explanation much less a convincing explanation for not complying the orders of this Court. On the contrary, I find that in the reply and in the additional reply the respondent is not even resentful for non-compliance for a considerable period in as much as in para 5 the respondent has stated that there was no wilful and deliberate inaction on the part of the Board. It is submitted that the appeal was pending before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and it was finally heard on 6. 8. 92 and Hon'ble Court granted one week's time from the date of passing the order dated 6. 8. 92 to declare the result of the petitioner and immediately as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court dated 6. 8. 92 the result of the petitioner was declared within the time prescribed and the compliance of the order of the Division Bench has been made. Even, this statement as made in the reply to the contempt petition is wrong and the respondent is also found guilty of making a factually incorrect statement in the reply before this Court in as much as it is admitted now before me that the communication with regard to the result was sent on 18. 8. 92 and yet the respondent has stated that he result of the petitioner was declared within the time prescribed when the prescribed time of 1 week was over on 13. 8. 92 so far as the order passed by the Division Bench dated 6. 8. 92 is concerned. On these premises the respondent has further submitted in the reply that the aforesaid facts are specific enough to convince this Hon'ble Court that there was no contempt much less wilful and deliberate. Thus, having denied that the respondent had not committed wilful and deliberate contempt he has used the words that he has full respect and regard to the orders of this Hon'ble Court and he cannot even think to commit any contempt of the orders of this Hon'ble Court since the appeal was pending against the order passed by this Court dated 8. 8. 91 and all the time it was adjourned with the intention that the matter will be finally disposed of since a short question of law is involved in it but for one reason or the other the matter could not be heard finally and immediately after the passing of the order in appeal the result of the petitioner was declared and the copy of the mark-sheet was sent at his home address. Having said all this the respondent says. " Even if in these circumstances the Hon'ble Court feels that any contempt has been committed by the respondent he tenders him un-conditional apology for the same. "even, in the additional reply which has been filed today during the course of arguments he has categorically stated in the sub-paragraph of para 6 that, "thus, the action of the answering respondent is neither intentionally nor wilfully. IN these circumstances this Hon'ble Court feels that the answering respondent had committed the contempt of the order of this Hon'ble Court he tender un-conditional apology for the same. " It is thus, obvious that there was no un-conditional apology whatsoever although, the word 'un-conditional apology' has been used and that too is coupled with more than one ifs and buts. Such apologies can't be said to be unconditional apologies by any stretch of imagination rather in my view through such apologies the contemner only seeks to pretend to be apologetic so as to wriggle out of the contempt and once it is found that there is no real repentance, there is no question of considering such statement as un- conditional apology which looks bonafides. Lastly, an application has been filed during the course of the dictation of this order in which it has been said that the respondent tenders his un-conditional apology before this Hon'ble Court. However, I find that apology is not worth acceptance for the simple reason that the real sense of repentance is wanting and it appears that so called un-conditional apology has been filed only to get out of this contempt notices and the Court is just sought to be taken for a ride on the basis of this so called un-conditional apology which is nothing but an eyewash. In these circumstances, I hold the respondent to be guilty of committing the contempt of this Court's order 8. 8. 91 and I also hold that the apology tendered by the petitioner is not bonafide. Accordingly the respondent is hereby sentenced to 1 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand only ). On the application of the learned counsel for the petitioner the sentence of 1 months simple imprisonment awarded to the petitioner, shall remain suspended for a period of 3 weeks, provided he furnishes a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) for being present in this Court as and when required. .;