THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE No.583 OF 2009 Date: 01.12.2009 Between: Mohammed Haleem. …Petitioner and The Government of A.P. rep., by its Secretary, Department of Pancahyatraj & Rural Development, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE No.583 OF 2009 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order of this Court in W.P.M.P. No.34054 of 2008 in W.P. No.26027 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008, whereby the 2nd respondent-District Collector was directed to consider the representation, submitted by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, take a decision and furnish him a copy of the order. This Court further directed that a copy of the order of the 2nd respondent should be placed before it through the Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The aforesaid order required the 2nd respondent-District Collector to comply with the order within two weeks i.e., on or before 12.12.2008. The 2nd respondent, however, passed the order on 01.06.2009 nearly six months thereafter. No petition was filed seeking extension of time to comply with the order. It is only in the counter-affidavit now filed in the contempt case that the 2nd respondent seeks to justify the delay in compliance. All that this Court had directed the 2nd respondent – District Collector to do was to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders within two weeks. There was no direction asking him to conduct an enquiry. The reasons stated, in the affidavit now filed, are not germane. In any event in the absence of an application having been filed in the writ petition seeking extension of time to comply with the order, the reasons now furnished cannot be examined in contempt proceedings where the scope of enquiry is limited only to whether or not the order of this Court has been violated and, if so, whether such violation is willful and deliberate. In case this Court is satisfied that there is willful and deliberate violation of its orders it is required to decide whether or not to impose punishment and, if so, the nature and extent of punishment to be imposed. As the 2nd respondent – District Collector has not complied with the order within the time prescribed, it is evident that the order of this Court has been violated. The very fact that the 2nd respondent has chosen not to file any petition seeking extension of time to comply with the order, and that he had complied with the order more than six months after the two weeks time prescribed by this Court had expired, is sufficient to hold that such violation is willful and deliberate. The apology now tendered in the counter affidavit filed is only to avoid punishment and does not, therefore, merit acceptance. I am satisfied that the order of this Court has been willfully and deliberately violated and the apology now tendered is not an act of contrition but is put forth only to escape the rigor of contempt. For the deliberate and willful violation of the Order of this Court the appropriate punishment, in my view, is fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) which the 2nd respondent shall pay within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Contempt Case is, accordingly, disposed of. ____________________________ Date: 01-12-2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR