R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) IN the midst of hearing of O. J. C. No. 7 of 1998 this application has come to be registered wherein prayer has been made to initiate contempt proceeding against Basanta Kumar Misra, Managing Director, Orissa Forest Development Corporation and G. Satpathy, Regional Marketing Executive, Calcutta, for violation of this Court's order and to punish them according to law. ( 2 ) UPON hearing Shri Mohanty for the writ petitioner and after perusing the application, Basanta Kumar Misra, Mainaging Director of the Orissa Forest Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') - Opposite party No. 2 was directed to appear in person on 4-3-1998 and to show cause as to why he shall not be suitably dealt with for having sold by way of auction a portion of the 1st covered under the impugned tender call notice which is the subject-matter of challenge in the writ application. Pursuant to the said order, Basanta Kumar Mishra - Opposite Party No. 1 appeared in person in Court on 4-3-1998 and filed his show cause. We heard Shri J. Patnaik, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1. We have also taken his (opposite party No. 1) statement on oath on 4-3-1998. ( 3 ) OPPOSITE Party No. 1 is the Managing Director of the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, a Government of Orissa Undertaking. He published notice dated 24-12-1997 (vide Annexure-4 of the writ application) inviting sealed tenders from the purchasers registered with the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited for purchase of processed kendu leaves produced during 1997 and unsold leaves of earlier year crops stored in different godowns on as is where is basis. A lot-list of processed kendu leaves of 1997 crops put to tender sale was enclosed to the impugned notice. The validity and propriety of the aforesaid tender call notice is the subject-matter of challenge in the writ application, i. e. , O. J. C. No. 7 of 1998. The Corporation through its Managing Director is opposite party No. 2 in the writ application. ( 4 ) ON 3-1-1998 rule nisi was issued fixing 12-1-1998 for admission and final disposal. On that day on an interim application vide Misc. The Corporation through its Managing Director is opposite party No. 2 in the writ application. ( 4 ) ON 3-1-1998 rule nisi was issued fixing 12-1-1998 for admission and final disposal. On that day on an interim application vide Misc. Case No. 8 of 1998, order was passed as follows :"let the process as envisaged in the impugned tender notice at Annexure-4 may be completed but no final decision be taken on it without leave of the Court. . . "on 12-1-1998, the writ application was admitted and at the request of the counsel for the Corporation, it was adjourned to 20-1-1998 with liberty to file counter affidavit in the meantime. On behalf of the Corporation, preliminary counter affidavit opposing the writ application was filed on 20-1-1998. Thereafter a consolidated counter affidavit in reply to the writ application and rejoinder was filed on 20-2-1998. The writ application was thereafter heard and was ultimately adjourned to 2-3-1998 for further hearing. On that day the present application was filed. ( 5 ) THE gist of the allegations made in the contempt application is that tender lot No. TS 270 (Division lot No. JR 5/3 of Unit No. 76) is one of the lots put to sale by way of tender in the impugned sole notice (Annexure-4 of the writ application) and in course of hearing of the writ application, Misc. Case No 1829 of 1998 was filed on behalf of the Corporation seeking leave of the Court to sell the kendu leaves for which negotiations had been finalised and when that application remains pending awaiting final adjudication of the main writ application, the Managing Director in disregard and/or disobedience of the order of this Court affected sale of the aforesaid lot by section at Calcutta on 18-2-1998. The Managing Director in his cause has admitted that out of the 1,30,000 quintals of kendu leaves stock put to tender under Annexure-4, 1380 quintals of kendu leaves were sold at Calcutta on 18-2-1998 by auction. The Managing Director in his cause has admitted that out of the 1,30,000 quintals of kendu leaves stock put to tender under Annexure-4, 1380 quintals of kendu leaves were sold at Calcutta on 18-2-1998 by auction. His plea, however, is that as per the impugned policy decision, 50,000 quintals of kendu leaves was earmarked for disposal to the traditional bulk buyers and also for disposal through outside sale centres like Chennai and Calcutta and when a proposal same to send stock of kendu leaves to Calcutta which included same unsold stock of kendu leaves of the third auction and also part of the stock of kendu leaves of the tender covered under the impugned tender sale notice (vide Annexure-4 of the writ application), he approved the said proposal for sale by auction "inadvertently and honestly" and he "could not visualise that same was not permissible in view of the interim order of this Hon'ble court passed on 3-1-1998". For this action, he has expressed his regret and has tendered unqualified apology. ( 6 ) THE thrust of the argument in the writ application on behalf of the petitioner has been that the Corporation has been selling processed kendu leaves by auction since 1973 and, in fact, for the crop year 1997-98, the first, second and third auction sales took place respectively from 7-7-1997 to 12-7-1997, 28-8-1997 to 6-9-1997 and from 10-11-1997 to 14-11-1997. Notice even was also published that the fourth auction sale would take place on 8-12-1997 but the proposed auction was cancelled and by the impugned notice the Corporation by abandoning the method of open auction sale of kendu leaves shifted over to sale by way of sealed tenders and by this new procedure the revenue that may be collected by way of sealed tenders would be far less than the revenue that might have been collected from the auction sale. ( 7 ) IN course of hearing of the writ application, a petition vide Misc. Case No. 1829 of 1998 was filed on behalf of the Corporation on 4-2-1998 seeking leave of the Court to take final decision on the sale of kendu leaves stating inter alia that the kendu leaves are perishable goods which need to be disposed of at the earliest and the Corporation has already finalised sale of kendu leaves at an average price of Rs. 3156/- per quintal which is higher than the average price at which kendu leaves were sold by way of auction. The said application is pending disposal to be dealt with at the final disposal of the writ application. ( 8 ) WE have given out anxious and due consideration to the submissions of Shri Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1. We have also perused the cause submitted by him. It is not in dispute that the Corporation through the Managing Director is opposite party No. 2 in the writ application. He is also aware of the interim order of this Court which prohibited the Corporation to take final decision on the impugned tender call notice without taking leave of the Court. He is also aware that on behalf of the Corporation, Misc. Case No. 1829 of 1998 has been filed in the Court seeking leave to take final decision on the sale of kendu leaves and the said application is pending consideration along with the writ application. On the face of such tell-tale admitted facts, action of opposite party No. 1 in selling a portion of the lot covered under the impugned tender call notice by auction is a flagrant attempt to overreach the Court. Such action of opposite party No. 1 is calculated to obstruct due process of judicial proceeding and administration of justice. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to reject the plea that he "inadvertently and bona fide" approved the sale of kendu leaves by auction at Calcutta on 18-2-1998. ( 9 ) NO doubt, opposite party No. 1 has tendered unqualified apology. We have considered the same. He is a senior officer belonging to the Indian Forest Service and he must be presumed to know that when the matter is sub judice, his action in selling a portion of the lot by auction would amount to subversion of rule of law. Justice Jeevan Reddy speaking for a three-member Bench of the Supreme Court in T. M. A. Rai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1995 SC 1938 : (1995 Cri LJ 3220) aptly and elequently observed as follows :". . . . . It is equally necessary to erase an impression which appears to be gaining ground that the 'mantra' of unconditional apology is a complete answer to violations and infractions of the orders of this Court. . . . . It is equally necessary to erase an impression which appears to be gaining ground that the 'mantra' of unconditional apology is a complete answer to violations and infractions of the orders of this Court. "in the back-drop of the facts indicated and for the reasons stated above, we reject the unconditional apology tendered by opposite party No. 1 and hold him guilty of contempt of Court. ( 10 ) WHAT sentence does opposite party No. 1 deserve ?we would have sentenced him to undergo imprisonment. In his deposition he has stated that he is aged about 56 years. He is, thus, in the evening of his service career. Having regard to the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if he is censured for his conduct. We order accordingly. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Orissa, for making necessary entry in the annual confidential report. ( 11 ) R. K. DASH, J. :- I agree. Order accordingly.