This contempt petition is related to an order passed by this Court on 18.3.88 in Civil Rule No. 350/88. In that Civil Rule, 131 persons were the petitioners and this Court after hearing the learned counsel of both the sides had passed the following -order : - "This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by 131 petitioners is directed against eviction notices issued to them under Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules. Their case is that they are in occupation of the land in question since long and they have made many applications to the authorities for settlement of either some better land or khas land. These applications are said to be under consideration of the authorities. Heard Shri Ahmed in support of the petition and Shri Chaliha, learned Government Advocate. Keeping in view the orders passed by this Court in similar cases and as agreed to by Shri Chaliha It is stated that the petitioners would not be evicted from the land under their occupation till such orders as deemed fit and proper by the settling authorities are passed on their applications for settlement of land in their favour. To expedite the matter, the petitioners would file fresh representations within a period of three weeks from today whereafter the appropriate authorities shall take such decision as deemed fit and proper by them relating to the settlement of the land as prayed for by the petitioners. This decision would be taken by the authorities within a period of two months from the date of receipt of fresh representations by the petitioners. Till then the petitioners would not be evicted from the land in their possession. The petition is disposed of accordingly." 2. The allegation of the contempt petitioners is that in violation of the aforesaid order of this Court, the contemner along with some others had caused demolition of two houses of writ petitioners Ali Ahmed and Abdur Razzak on 26.4.88 and further demolition of 65 houses on 29.4 88. 3. Originally, the contempt petition was filed by 22 persons on 3.5.88 where after 19 parsons wished to be impleaded as parties in the contempt petition. And as such we have 41 persons before us and the allegation is that 67 of their houses were demolished in violation of this Court's orders. 4. 3. Originally, the contempt petition was filed by 22 persons on 3.5.88 where after 19 parsons wished to be impleaded as parties in the contempt petition. And as such we have 41 persons before us and the allegation is that 67 of their houses were demolished in violation of this Court's orders. 4. According to the contempt-petitioners what had happened was that on 26.4.88, the contemner who is the Sub-Deputy Collector of Barkhetri Circle arrived at the village in question on 26.4.88 with a contingent of police force and after reaching the village started demolition of the houses of Ali Ahmad and Abdur Rezzak forcibly and when a photostat copy of this Court's aforesaid order was produced before the contemner he took away the copy and stopped further damage with a threatening that all the petitioners numbering 131 persons should give him Rs. 100/-each otherwise he will not give effect to the order of this Court. As the petitioners failed to give bribe to the contemner, he came on 29.4.88 again, and with the help of police force damaged the house of the contempt petitioners and destroyed all household articles and created havoc and inhuman atrocities upon them. 5. The defetce of the contemner is that on 26. 4. 88, no order of this Court was shown to him and in fact on that day on being asked by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, he had gone to the village to carry out the eviction operation and had demolished about 85 unauthorised constructions. There was no eviction operation on 27th and 28th of April, 1988, as the contemner bad to go out on official work to Nalbari and, as such, further demolition was started on 29. 4. 88. It is his further case that after demolition of about 150 unauthorised constructions on 29th, a photostat copy of the aforesaid order was given to him and after knowing about the order, he continued demolition work on that day also but avoided constructions of 131 petitioners as ordered by the Court. This is what has been averred in para 2 of the show cause. 6. In para 13 it has been stated by the contemner that it is a fact that "demolition operation was carried out on 26. 4 and 29. This is what has been averred in para 2 of the show cause. 6. In para 13 it has been stated by the contemner that it is a fact that "demolition operation was carried out on 26. 4 and 29. 4, but as soon as the deponent came to know, about the order on the later part of 29.4 he did not allow any further demolition of the petitioners' structure nor he has disturbed the possession of the petitioner". The statement in para 13 would mean that before the contemner had known about the order of this Court which, according to him was on the later part of 29. 4. 88, some demolition of the petitioners' structures had been carried out. In para 13 it has been further stated "If prior to the knowledge of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court any structure was demolished in that huge evicted operation i. e. because of ignorance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court if such demolition, prior to the receipt of the High Court's order is considered to be a violation, the same is absolutely unintentional and the deponent tenders unqualified apology to this Hon'ble Court". Here again, I find admission that before the order of this Court was received and made known to the petitioners in the later part of 29. 4 88 he might have caused demolition of some structures of the petitioners. 7. The most important question to be decided is whether it can be believed that the contemner was made known about this Court's order in the later part of 29.4.88 or on 26.4.88 itself when the contemner had admittedly gone to the village in question to carry out the demolition operation. I am of the firm view that the petitioners having been armed with an order of this Court passed as early as on 18. 3. 88 would not have missed to show the order of this Court to the contemner on 26. 4. 88 itself. The order was not meant to be kept secret or stored in the house without serving any purpose. According to me the order must have been shown to the contemner on the first occasion itself which was 26. 4. 88. 88 would not have missed to show the order of this Court to the contemner on 26. 4. 88 itself. The order was not meant to be kept secret or stored in the house without serving any purpose. According to me the order must have been shown to the contemner on the first occasion itself which was 26. 4. 88. I would, therefore, hold that the demolition of the houses of the contempt-petitioners, which has been impliedly admitted because of what has been stated above, was in violation of this Court's order inasmuch as, to reiterate, I am not prepared to believe that the order was not shown to him on 26. 4. 88 but was produced after demolition work had made much headway on 29. 4. 88. The order of this Court being in the nature of protection to the petitioners, they could not have missed to show the same in the first instance. This being the position, I have no doubt that the demolition of the petitioners' structures whatever the number might be may not be 67 houses, was definitely carried on even after the contemner had known about the order of this Court. I am statisfied about the allegations of the contempt petitioners also because of the fact that they have not made wild allegation that all the houses of the writ petitioners were destroyed. They have said about destruction of two houses on 26. 4. 88 and of 65 houses on 29. 4. 88. If they were out to make untrue allegation there was nothing to prevent them from saying that houses of all the writ petitioners were destroyed. The remaining houses of the writ petitioners might not have been destroyed because of their greasing the palms of the contemner. In this view of the matter, I do not feel any necessity of further evidence in the matter as is contemplated by Rule 11 of this Court's Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of Subordinate Courts and of the High Court, as urged by Shri Bhattacharjee appearing for the contemner. 8. A submission has been made by Shri Bhattacharjee that the affidavits of the contempt-petitioners should not be taken at its face value inasmuch as the statements made in paragraph 2 that they had filed representations within 3 weeks from 18. 3. 8. A submission has been made by Shri Bhattacharjee that the affidavits of the contempt-petitioners should not be taken at its face value inasmuch as the statements made in paragraph 2 that they had filed representations within 3 weeks from 18. 3. 88 before the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 18. 3. 88 is not correct. To substantiate this submission, my attention has been invited by the learned counsel to the petition filed before the Deputy Commissioner relating to the settlement of the land which has been signed by the Advocate on 23. 4. 88 and which would show that the representation was not made within a period of three weeks as averred in para 2 of the contempt petition. Though this statement is not borne out by the record, but then fur reasons given above I would not doubt the averment made in other paragraphs regarding demolition of about 67 houses by the contemner after he knew about the order of this Court. 9. Another contention advanced by Shri Bhattacharjee is that as the contempt-petitioners had not filed representation within the time allowed by this Court, the order of this Court not to evict the petitioners from the land in their possession till the matter is dispossed of as indicated in its order had ceased to be effective. It is, however, not the defence of the contemner that he had not carried out this Court's order because the contempt petitioners or for that matter the writ petitioners had not approached the appropriate authority within the period of three weeks as stated by this Court. His defence rather is that the order was shown to him in the later part of 29th April, 1988 and after that he had not demolished any structure of the petitioners. For reasons already given, I am unable to accept this defence. 10. In view of what bas been stated above, I am satisfied that the contemner had wilfully violated this Court's order. This takes us to the question of sentence. Before this aspect is decided, I have some observations to make. First is that people's confidence in the Court is based on the fact that if a competent court passes an order in favour of any litigant the same would be carried out and nobody would take to his head to violate the same wilfully. Before this aspect is decided, I have some observations to make. First is that people's confidence in the Court is based on the fact that if a competent court passes an order in favour of any litigant the same would be carried out and nobody would take to his head to violate the same wilfully. If wilful violation becomes the order of the day, the litigant public would loose faith in the entire system of administration of justice and the rule of law would cease to operate in this country. People, who have muscle power, would then take recourse to it to try to redress their grievances. The rule of law would then give place to the rule of might. In the process the weak and the lowly, the meek and the oppressed would suffer as they would have no forum which they can seek to approach to seek justice. I shudder to think of these consequences. 11. the second observation which I have to make is that this Court is being approached almost daily complaining of wilful violation of this Court's order. This would be borne out amply by the contempt petitions being filed agalore in the principal seat as well as in the outlying Bench of Imphal. I had an occasion the other day to hear a learned counsel of Manipur Bar making an open grievance in Court No. I that disposal of every writ petition containing some directions to the public officers is required to be followed by contempt petition in Manipur. A learned member of this Bar had made a public grievance about it through news media. According to me a stage has come when everybody must be made known for definite that if he violates, not to speak of this Court's order but of any court's order, he does so at his own risk and peril. The cancerous growth of wilful violation of the court's orders has to be taken care of as early as possible, as delay may prove fatal. This contempt has definitely interfered substantially with the due course of justice inasmuch as many families were unjustly rooted out and, as such, imposition, of sentence has become a dire necessity. The requirement of section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for short the Act, is, therefore, amply satisfied in the present case. 12. This contempt has definitely interfered substantially with the due course of justice inasmuch as many families were unjustly rooted out and, as such, imposition, of sentence has become a dire necessity. The requirement of section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for short the Act, is, therefore, amply satisfied in the present case. 12. The third observation to be made by me is that the contemner is a public servant and so he owes a duty to the public not to act against public interest. If orders of this Court are violated, the same would definitely be against public interest, may, against national interest. 13. Because of what has been stated above, I am of the firm view that wilful violation of this Court's order or, for that matter, any court's order is required to be viewed very seriously if rule of law has to be maintained in this democratic country. 14. Keeping in view all the above, and the further fact that the unlawful act of the contemner has uprooted many families from their houses making them shelterless, I am satisfied that the present is a case where exemplary punishment should be awarded. I am therefore, constrained to sentence the contemner to imprisonment for 15 days and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to imprisonment for 15 days more. 15. Before concluding may I say that I hope and trust that the sentence awarded in this case, which to my knowledge is the first case where this Court during its existence of about 40 years has felt compelled to send a contemner to jail, would have a sobering effect on all, and the news of lodging a contemner to jail would put a check on the growing tendency of violating court's orders. If a second occasion were nonetheless to arise, the Court may feel duty bound to pass a more severe sentence. 16. In the result the petition is allowed as aforesaid. Send copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam. At this stage, Shri Bhattacharjee prays that the execution of the sentence may be suspended as the contemner desires to prefer appeal and he refers me to section 19 (3) of the Act which permits me to do so. I allow this prayer and suspend the execution of sentence for a period of one month.