JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J.—This petition is for punishing the respondents for having willfully disobey the directions of this Court as also that of the District Judge, Una dated 5-3-1988 and affirmed by this Court on 27-12-1994. At the out set, it can be said that nothing has been specifically stated against respondents No 2 and 3 and we do not find any justification for proceeding against them under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. 2. We are concerned only with the first respondent in this matter, who has appeared before us and also given a statement on oath in addition to the reply filed by him originally on 30-7-1996 and the supplementary affidavit filed on 14-3-1997. 3. The order which is said to have been disobeyed was passed by this Court on 27-12-1994 in Civil Revision No. 79 of 1988 connected with Civil Revision No. 218 of 1988. By that order, the directions contained in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court were affirmed and the revision petitions were dismissed There was an earlier order passed during the pendency of the revision petition by which specific directions were issued to the first respondent to nominate a Managing Committee for the temple Devi Chintpurni situate in Tehsil Amb, District Una The relevant directions of this Court read as follows :— "(i) The learned Commissioner (D C, Una), shall constitute a Managing Committee consisting of 7 officials member which would be nominated by the Commissioner from Revenue, Administration, P W. D. (B & R) P. W. D. (I & PH), Development, Police and Health Department respectively, in addition to this Commissioner shall nominate 4 non-official members from the Panchayat where the temple was situated. In case these Panchayat members were not available, 4 non-official members to be nominated from the area where the temple was situated. In addition to this 11 members out of plaintiffs and other persons named by them in List "A tiled with the plaint shall also constitute members of the Managing Committee. The plaintiffs have to submit the list of i i members as referred to the learned Commissioner within 15 days of the passing of the present order failing which the learned Commissioner shall nominate II members out of the present plaintiffs and the persons named in list ‘A’” 4. The plaintiffs have to submit the list of i i members as referred to the learned Commissioner within 15 days of the passing of the present order failing which the learned Commissioner shall nominate II members out of the present plaintiffs and the persons named in list ‘A’” 4. The most important part of the said direction with which we are concerned is that the Commissioner shall nominate 4 non-official members from the Panchayat where the temple was situated and in case such Panchayat members were not available, 4 non-official members were to be nominated from the area where the temple was situated. 5. The order of this Court was dated 27-12-1994 and on the very next day the plaintiffs in the suit out of which the revision arose had sent a communication through their lawyer to the first respondent submitting a list of 11 members out of whom the members of the Managing Committee could be nominated by him Those 11 members were Pujaries of the Temple The first respondent did nor constitute the Managing Committee till 20-5-1995. By that time, the present petitioners had prepared this petition for punishing the respondents for Contempt, and actually filed the same on 22-5-1995 complaining that the respondents had not complied with the directions of this Court issued on 2742-1994 which were m confirmation of the directions given earlier After getting the communication from the first respondent of the order dated 20 5 I>>95 constituting the Committee of the management the petitioners filed an application in O M P No. 41 of 1995 on 5-6-1995 In that application it was pointed out that four non-official members nominated by the first respondent were not members of the Panchayat and at that time there were as many as 7 members of the Panchayat available for such nomination. Their names were set out in the application. 6 According to the first respondent, he received notice in the Civil Miscellaneous application for Contempt in October, 1995 but the first respondent did not take any steps to rectify the mistake of appointing four non-official members who were not members of the Panchayat but who were members of the locality. Their names were set out in the application. 6 According to the first respondent, he received notice in the Civil Miscellaneous application for Contempt in October, 1995 but the first respondent did not take any steps to rectify the mistake of appointing four non-official members who were not members of the Panchayat but who were members of the locality. The first respondent actually passed an order on 24-1-1996 and reconstituted the committee of management by substituting four members of the local panchayat in place of four non-official members already appointed by him It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to set out in detail the challenge of the latter order passed by the first respondent by the members who were originally appointed as nonofficial members of the Committee in a writ petition which has already been disposed of by us Suffice it to point out that the order of this Court dated 27-12-1994 was actually carried out by the first respondent only on 24-1-1996 and not at any earlier date. 7 The passing of the second order dated 24-1 1996 was only during the pendency of this proceeding for contempt In the reply tiled m the first instance by the first respondent on 30-7-1996, it was stated that the order of this Court had not given any dead line for constitution of the committee and the first respondent honestly made all the efforts to implement the orders as early as possible. II was also stated that the matter was delayed because three lists were filed before the Commissioner, Temple recommending inclusion of 11 members of Pujaries. It is further stated that the first respondent wanted to consult all the parties and also take legal opinion in the matter so that the of this Court may be implemented in letter and spirit and that the said process took some time without any intention of delaying the matter on the part of the first respondent Finally according to the reply, the Managing Committee was constituted on 20-5-1995 accepting the lists submitted by the plaintiff Anant Ram who is the first petitioner herein. 8 It is hardly necessary to say that the reply filed as late as on 30-7-1996 was many way satisfactory and it did not show that the first respondent acted bonafide in the matter of implementing the orders of this Court. 8 It is hardly necessary to say that the reply filed as late as on 30-7-1996 was many way satisfactory and it did not show that the first respondent acted bonafide in the matter of implementing the orders of this Court. At the risk of repetition, we have to pointed out that as many as 5 months and more had elapsed before the order was actually given effect and that too a specific direction given by this Court that non-official members should be nominated from the members of the local panchayat was ignored by the first respondent at that time. There was no explanation in the reply dated 30-7-1996 as to why non-official members were selected from the people who were not members of the local panchayat, 9. When the matter came up before us on I!-3-1997, we adjourned the matter to 17-3-1997 and directed that the first respondent shall remain present in Court Thereafter the first respondent filed a supplementary affidavit on 14-3-1997 In the said affidavit, it is stated that he is not fully aware of the proper legal language in drafting the reply and the mistake contained in the earlier reply-affidavit filed by him was unintentional and bona fide The mistake referred to in the supplementary affidavit was with regard to his status as Managing Director, H P. General Industries Corporation Limited At the time when the earlier reply was filed by him he was not the Deputy Commissioner, Una but he was Managing Director of the aforesaid Corporation but he had described himself as "presently posted as Deputy Commissioner, Una". It is that mistake which is referred to in paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit which according to the first respondent is unintentional and bona fide It is further stated in the supplementary affidavit that no specific time limit was given by this Court for constitution of the Committee and it was actually constituted on 20-5-1995 The reason given in the earlier affidavit is re iterated It -also submitted that there was a bona fide error on the part of the first respondent while constituting the Committee on 20 5-1995. According to the supplementary affidavit, the mistake was never pointed out to him by any of the parties including the petitioner even though one meeting was attended by the petitioner and other representatives of the Pujaries It is stated that non-official members have to be taken from the same Panchayat where the temple is situated and through bona fide error the first respondent included the names of two Pradhans who belonged to a nearby Panchayats and two local persons. It is also urged that on realising the mistake the first respondent immediately rectified it by constituting a Committee on 24-1-1996 in super session of the earlier Committee. 10. Thus, in the supplementary affidavit also there is no proper explanation for the omission of the first respondent to choose the members from the local panchayat as directed by this Court 11 When certain questions were put to the counsel for the first respondent, she represented to the Court that the first respondent who was present in Court would himself make his statement before the Court and answer the questions of the Court. Therefore, we permitted the first respondent to make his statement on oath and also put certain questions to him. In the course of his statement, the first respondent has come forward with an entirely new version that when he constituted the first Committee on 20-5-1995, there were six members of the local Panchayat available but four of them were Pujaries who were already petitioners in the main petition and who had been represented in the Committee, According to him, he was under the impression that the Pujaries have already been represented in the Committee and he should not appoint those persons once again as members of the Committee According to him, he included two members from the nearby Panchayats Nari and Badhmana and two respectable persons from the locality. A specific question was put to him by the Court that when only four of the members of the Panchayat were Pujaries, why he did not appoint the other two members of the Panchayat as non-official members of the Committee. He admitted that he committed an error in that regard and he thought that he could include four suitable members from the local area. He admitted that he committed an error in that regard and he thought that he could include four suitable members from the local area. That answer itself shows that he did not think it necessary to abide by the specific direction given by this Court that non-official members should be selected from amongst the members of the Panchayat. He was also asked whether there was any direction or order of this Court that if any of the members of the local panchayat is a Pujari, he shall exclude them from consideration. He answered in the negative When he was asked as to why he did not put forward this version which he was placing before the Court orally in either of the replies filed by him earlier in the Court, he said that he did not have proper legal advice as he could not engage counsel without the permission of the Government According to him in the contempt notice received by him the complaint was only regarding delay in the constitution of the Committee and, therefore, he gave only an explanation relating to that delay. With regard to supplementary affidavit, he has stated that he thought that he would get a chance to explain it in the Court, if need be, and therefore, he did not mention it in the supplementary affidavit Neither of the answers given by him is convincing If he had a specific reason for not complying with the express direction given by this Court, he ought to have mentioned the same in the earlier affidavit filed by him or atleast in the supplementary affidavit for which he had competent legal advice. Both the times, he was represented by a competent lawyer through whom he ought to have placed his reasons which could have been included at least in the supplementary affidavit. There is no explanation for his not informing the lawyer about this aspect of the matter. 12. This version of the first respondent that he did not have proper legal advice at the relevant time is falsified by his own admission in the course of his statement He has stated that earlier he had consulted a lawyer on telephone who later on became a Judge of this Court, Even the name of the lawyer could not be stated by him correctly. Thus, it is brought in his own statement that he had legal advice before he filed first reply in this Court. There is no explanation as to why he did not put forward this version either in the first reply or in the supplementary affidavit. We are unable to accept this explanation which is bow placed before us in the oral statement given by him. 13. A perusal of his statement would also show that there is no explanation as to why he did not take any action to rectify the mistake committed by him when he constituted the Committee on 20-3-1995 Even accepting his version that he received the notice in the contempt proceedings only in October, 1995 and also the Civil Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioner in that month, he ought to have taken steps immediately to rectify his mistake and nominated non-official members from the members of the Panchayat. His version in this regard is that the Pancbayets were dissolved w.e.f. 10-H-1995 by the Government and new Panchayats were constituted only in January, 1996 Even assuming that statement to be correct, he had atleast a months time to rectify his mistake which he did not choose to do« 14. A perusal of the reply filed by the first respondent alongwith the supplementary affidavit and the oral statement made before us yesterday clearly shows that the first respondent did not have any regard for the order of this Court, At no time he thought fit to read the order and understand the same in order to carry it out in its letter and spirit. The attitude of the first respondent is highly condemnable We cannot accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent that he has acted bonafide and there was no willful disobedience on his part. We are of the opinion that the first respondent ought to have applied his mind when he wanted to implement the order of this Court. Non-application of his mind itself shows that he had not bothered about the order of this Court or to carry out the same in its letter and spirit. Hence, we hold that the first respondent is guilty of contempt in not carrying out the order of this Court implicitly. 15. Non-application of his mind itself shows that he had not bothered about the order of this Court or to carry out the same in its letter and spirit. Hence, we hold that the first respondent is guilty of contempt in not carrying out the order of this Court implicitly. 15. Coming to the question of sentence, it is seen that the first respondent is aged about 33 years and he has got a long career ahead, it is stated that he was Deputy Commissioner, Una for 2-1/2 years. It is also noted that the first respondent has expressed unconditional apology in the supplementary affidavit We are of the view that if a severe punishment is awarded to the first respondent, his career might be spoiled In circumstances, we prefer to deliver severe admonition to the first respondent and warn him that in future he shall abide by the orders of Court implicitly .and carry out the same in letter and spirit, 16 With the above admonition, this contempt petition is disposed of. The respondents are discharged. Order accordingly.