Order: 1. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner that on account of his official duty to attend to the Election Commission of India at New Delhi for discussion on 11th and 12th October, 1984, he is unable to be present on 12th October, 1984, to which date the contempt application stand posted and is summoned to appear in person and, therefore, he requested to dispense with his presence on that date. Sri E.Manohar, the learned Additional Advocate-General relied upon the proviso to Rule 18 of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) and requested this Court to dispense with his personal appearance. Rule 18 of the Rules reads as follows: “Notice of every contempt case, if ordered by Court for service on the contemner, shall be in Form I and shall be accompanied by one set of all papers filed in the case and the said notice with and enclosures shall be served personally on the alleged contemner, unless the Court otherwise directs for reasons to be recorded, requiring him to appear in person, unless otherwise ordered, on a day fixed, which shall be not less than four weeks from the date of the order as fixed by the Court, for hearing of the proceeding and to show cause why he may not be suitably punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and he shall continue to remain present during the hearing till the proceeding is finally disposed of by order of the Court, unless otherwise directed: Provided that the Court, on an application made by the contemner, before the date fixed for his appearance in the notice, to dispense with his personal appearance in Court, may, for sufficient cause, dispense with his personal appearance and permit him to appear by his pleader.” 2. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, or on an application, before the date fixed for his appearance in the notice, to dispense with his personal appearance in Court, that too far sufficient cause shown, the contemner shall appear in person as per the Rule. It is true that on a reading of the proviso without reference to the main part of Rule 18 of the Rules would indicate that the personal appearance of the contemner, by showing sufficient cause may be dispensed with and his pleader may be permitted to appear on his behalf. It is true that on a reading of the proviso without reference to the main part of Rule 18 of the Rules would indicate that the personal appearance of the contemner, by showing sufficient cause may be dispensed with and his pleader may be permitted to appear on his behalf. But, the main part of Rule 18 of the Rules, in unmistakable terms, indicates that the appearance of the contemner is mandatory. The proviso is only an enabling one intended to operate in limited field to avoid inconvenience to the contemner who is otherwise prevented to appear on that date and for that date for his failure to appear, he is enjoined to file an application before the date fixed to appear showing sufficient cause. The Court, upon being satisfied that there is sufficient cause, could dispense with his appearance for that date. Therefore, the object is only to dispense with his appearance on that date but he is enjoined to appear on the date that may be fixed subsequent to the date originally fixed. If it is intended that on an application and by showing sufficient cause, the personal appearance would be dispensed with completely without the contemner appearing in Court and instead his counsel is permitted to appear on his behalf, the effect of the main part of the rule would easily be defeated by making allegations prima facie acceptable as a subterfuge to evade appearance in Court. That is not the intendment of the Rule. The Rule is intended to alleviate the inconvenience that may be caused to one's business or avocation by disturbing his previously arranged programme, but not as a lever to evade appearance in Court as a subterfuge in defiance of the mandatory provisions of the main part of the Rule. Any other construction of the proviso would easily defeat the object of the main part of the Rule, as such a construction would not only create an invidious discrimination as between an ordinary citizen and a person capable of creating a reasonable probability of inconvenience attracting Article 14 of the Constitution but also adds impetus to evade appearance in the Court. Therefore, I am of the view that the operation of the proviso should be so considered that the dispensing of the personal appearance of the contemner be only on the day fixed and permission should be granted to his counsel to appear on his behalf. But, it is mandatory that the contemner should appear on the next date of hearing. In this view, on a reading of the affidavit, I am satisfied that the petitioner being called upon to attend to the Election Commission of India at New Delhi for a discussion on the day fixed i.e. October 12, 1984, and thereby he is inconvenienced to appear on that date. Accordingly, his presence is dispensed with. He is permitted to appear on that date, namely, October 12, 1984, by the learned Additional Advocate-General and he shall appear before the Court on October 19, 1984, the date on which the learned Additional Advocate-General agreed and undertook that the petitioner would appear. The petition is accordingly ordered. Order accordingly.