This is a contempt petition under section 12 and 13 of the Contempt of Courts Acts, 1971 (in short the Act) read with Article 215 of the Constitution a with a prayer to initiate a contempt proceeding against the respondents 1,2 and 3 for alleged wilful violation of the order dated 18.11.98 passed by this Court in Civil Misc Case No. 47 (K) 98 arising out of Civil Rule No. 145 (K) 97. 2.1 have heard Mr. K. Meruno, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. I. Jamir, learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3 at length. 3. The facts of the case are quite unpleasant and unfortunate and stated briefly. Civil Rule No. 145 (K) 97 has been filed assailing the appointment order dated 29.11.97 of the respondent No. 5 Shri. L. Impangkokba, son of Shri Imkong Yabang (respondent No.l herein) as Medical Attendant at Molungkimong Dispensary. The ground for assailing the appointment of the 5th respondent is that the petitioner is the real land owner who donated the land free of cost for c opening a Dispensary at Molungkimong Village and as such the petitioner should have been appointed instead of the respondent No.5. It may be stated herein that the appointment was sought for on the basis of land ownership. This Court after hearing counsel of both sides passed the following order on 14.9.98 : “14.9.98 : The dispute involved in this writ petition is with regard to the appointment of Medical Attendant at Molungkimong Dispensary. The appointment d was sought on the basis of land ownership. A disputed question of fact has arisen as to whether the petitioner or the 5th respondent is the land owner. At one point of time, 5th respondent's name has been recommended by the Putumenden by its letter dated 16.11.97. At the same time, the petitioner's name has also been recommended for appointment as Medical Attendant. Thereafter, the Civil Surgeon by its letter dated 25th Nov'97 sought for clarification as to who is the real land owner. The Chairman of Village Council, Molungkimong by its letter dated 3.12.97 clarified that Nukshimatong, the father of the petitioner was the land owner till the Mopungsanger period. However, during Kosasanger period the land was demarcated as village land. It however appears that the real land owner was Nukshimatong, the father of the petitioner. The Chairman of Village Council, Molungkimong by its letter dated 3.12.97 clarified that Nukshimatong, the father of the petitioner was the land owner till the Mopungsanger period. However, during Kosasanger period the land was demarcated as village land. It however appears that the real land owner was Nukshimatong, the father of the petitioner. Since the appointment is sought for purely on the basis of land ownership, this dispute must be resolved before anybody is appointed. The learned ADC (J), Mokokchung is directed to verify as to whether the petitioner Shri Imliwapang or the 5th respondent Shri Impangkokba Ao was the original land owner. The learned ADC (J), Mokokchung shall submit the report to this Court by 16th Oct'98. This matter is kept part heard." 4. It appears pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the learned ADC (J), Mokokchung inquired into the matter and recorded the statements of both sides on 22.10.98 to find out as to who is the real land owner. Following the inquiry of the learned ADC (J) on 22.10.98 and recording the statements of both sides, 2 (two) resolutions were passed by the Molungkimong Village Putumenden (Village Panchayat). One on 2.11,98 inter alia that Shri Lademnuken, Shri Purtoshi and Shri Nukshimatong (father of the petitioner) has made a false statement before the learned ADC (J), Mokokchung against the village and therefore, they were imposed a fine of one pig each by the citizen of the village. 5. Further, on 9.11.98 under the Chairmanship of contemner No. 1 Shri Imkong Yabang and contemner No.2 Shri J. Tongzuk has reiterated the resolution passed on 2.11.98 and further resolved as follows : “It has been resolved by the Council that Shri Nukshimadong must withdraw the case from the High Court, Nagaland, Kohima and the copy of the same shall be delivered to the Council by 20.11.98 in case of violation of this resolution, the Sungsama resolves to cancel their citizenship from village." 6. The aforesaid facts has been brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner by filing Misc Case No. 47 (K) 98. The aforesaid facts has been brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner by filing Misc Case No. 47 (K) 98. This Court on 18.11.98 passed the following order: “18.11.98 : This misc application arises out of the order dated 14.9.98 passed by this Court in CR No. 145 (K) 97 directing the learned Addl Deputy Commissioner (J) to verify as to whether the petitioner Shri Imliwapang or the 5th respondent Shri Impangkokba Ao was the original land owner and submit the report. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the learned ADC (J) inquired into the matter on 22.10.98 and recorded the statement of both sides to find out as to who is the real land owner. It is stated in this misc application that the father of the petitioner and witnesses who has deposed before the learned Deputy Commissioner on 22.10.98 has been penalised by Molungkimong Village in its Resolution dated 2.11.98 by imposing a fine of one pig each. Further on 9.11.93 also, the Molungkimong Sungsama Mongdang has imposed a fine of biggest animal in the village for deposing false statement before the learned ADC (J) Mokokchung pursuant to the direction of this Court. It is further revealed that by the aforesaid Resolution dated 9.11.98, the petitioner's father Shri Nukshimadong has been directed to withdraw the case from this Court and the same must be complied by 20.11.98. A bare perusal of the Resolution dated 2.11.98 and 9.11.98 as recited above, reveals that the action of the Chairman of Mopongsanger Putu Menden Molungkimong Village Resolution dated 2.11.98 and 9.11.98 is quite contemptuous. Since the witnesses who deposed before the learned ADC (J), Mokokchung on 22.10.98 was pursuant to the direction of this Court, they cannot be faulted. At the same time, it is an inalienable right and the liberty of citizens to approach this Court to redress their grievances^ and no authority however high it may be, cannot pressurise the individual to withdraw the case from the High Court. This is yet another instance of interfering with the administration of justice and contemptuous. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is highly essential that Chairman of Molungkimong Sungsama Mondang Shri. I. Yabang and Shri. J. Tongzuk, Secretary of the Village Council shall be impleaded as party respondents 6 and 7 in the writ proceeding in Civil Rule No. 145 (K) of 1997. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is highly essential that Chairman of Molungkimong Sungsama Mondang Shri. I. Yabang and Shri. J. Tongzuk, Secretary of the Village Council shall be impleaded as party respondents 6 and 7 in the writ proceeding in Civil Rule No. 145 (K) of 1997. In the meantime, the respondents 6 and 7 are restrained from giving effect to the Resolution dated 2.11.98 and 9.11.98 pending disposal of the civil rule. No action whatsoever shall also be taken against the father of the petitioner or any witnesses appeared before the learned ADC (J) Mokokchung on 22.10.93. Learned ADC (J), Mokokchung shall see that this order is implemented effectively and execute the order if necessity so arises as and when the parties approach him with a complaint of violation of this order.Petitioner shall take steps in course of the day for service of notice upon the respondents 6 and 7. Registry shall send a copy of this order to the respondents 6 and 7 through ADC(J),Mokokchung who shall furnish forthwith the order to the respondents 6 and 7. Registry shall also furnish a copy of this order to the learned ADC (J), Mokokchung for effective implementation. Civil Rule No. 145 (K) of 1997 is released from part heard." 7. Petitioner states that the order dated 13.11.98 passed by this Court has been delivered to the contenders on 22.11.98. Contemners also admitted that the Court order dated 18.11.98 has been received by the contemners on 22.11.98. 8. Despite of the receipt of the order dated 18.11.98 on 22.11.98 the contemners under the Chairmanship and Secretaryship of contemner No. 1 and contemner No. 3 passed the following resolutions: "Office of the Mopongsager Putu Menden Mulongkimong Village Ref No. Date. 28.11.98 Sub :Non-withdrawal of case by Nukshimadong. On 9th Nov. the Sungsama Mongdang have resolved that if Nukshimadong does not withdraw the case pending in the High Court by 20th Nov. he shall be imposed a fine of the biggest animal in the village and shall be ex-communicated. But against the Sungsama resolution as he failed to withdraw the case today on 20th Nov. both Shri Nukshimadong and son Imliwapang are ex-communicated, from Molungkimong senso (citizen). he shall be imposed a fine of the biggest animal in the village and shall be ex-communicated. But against the Sungsama resolution as he failed to withdraw the case today on 20th Nov. both Shri Nukshimadong and son Imliwapang are ex-communicated, from Molungkimong senso (citizen). The Sungsama Mongdang resolves that if he desires to become a senso (citizen), he can do so after withdrawing the case and after tying one animal each in the Chungliong Kilang and Mongsenong Kilango. The Sungsama Mongdang lays down the following resolutions 1. From this day no one belonging to any clan shall pay a visit to his place. 2. No one belonging to any clan shall render any kind of help or assistance. 3. From this day no one belonging to any clan shall borrow or share anything with him and also shall not render help at the time of construction house and granary. Whosoever breaks this resolution they shall be imposed a fine of Rs. 25.00 Rupees twenty five) each. Sig. I. Yapang VCC I. Ladong C. Secy." 9. Further by a letter dated 5.1.99 under the signature of the contemner No. 2 demanding a fine imposed by the citizen directing to deposit the fine amount of Rs. 2,500 being the price of a pig to reach the Council on 10.1.99 failing which the house site at the village shall be disposed of as per the decision of the Council. In the facts and circumstances as recited above, this contempt petition has been filed alleging inter alia that the resohitions dated 28.11.98 passed under the Chairmanship and Secretaryship of contemners 1 and 3 is in violation of the order dated 18.11.98 passed by this Court a copy of which has been received by the contemners on 22.11.98. 10. Counter on behalf of all the contemners has been filed. The averments made by the petitioner in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been admitted by the contemners in paragraph 4 of their counter. Specific averments has been made by the petitioner in paragraph 4 of its petition as under: “That the said order dated 18.11.98 have been duly received by the contemner No. 2 on 22.11.98. But despite the clear direction of this Hon'ble Court the contemners vide its resolution dated 28.11.98 the petitioner and his father have been ex-communicated from the senso (citizenship)." 11. But despite the clear direction of this Hon'ble Court the contemners vide its resolution dated 28.11.98 the petitioner and his father have been ex-communicated from the senso (citizenship)." 11. In this connection, I may refer to the paragraph 4 of the counter filed by the respondents. In fact, all the counter filed by the respondents are parrot like repetition. Paragraph 4 of the counter of the respondent No. 1 is sufficient to cover all the counters of the respondents. Paragraph 4 of the counter of the contemner No. 1 reads : "4. That the statements made in paragraphs 1,2,3,4 and 5 are matters of record and the same are admitted to the extent as borne out by such records." 12. Therefore, it stands quite clear that the order dated 13.11.98 passed by this Court in Misc Case No. 47 (K) of 1998 restraining the respondents not to give effect to the resolutions dated 2.11.98,9.11.98 pending disposal of the main civil rule has been deliberately violated by the contemners by its resolution dated 28.11.98 despite of the receipt of the Court order dated 18.11.98 on 22.11.98. In other words, the resolution dated 28.11.93 passed under the Chairmanship of contemners 1 and 3 was in, defiance of the order dated 18.11.98 passed by this Court and in a clear deliberate and wilful term and contumacious. 13. Contemner No. 3 has also filed counter and stated that on 28.11.98 he was ill and the resolution dated 28.11.98 was passed under the Secretaryship of respondent No.3. May be on 28.11.98, contemner No.2 was sick and the resolution was passed under the Chairmanship and Secretaryship of contemners 1 and 3 but the contemner No. 3, as written a letter dated 5.1.99 directing the parties to deposit the fine of Rs. 2,500 being the price of a pig in pursuance of the resolution dated 28.11.98. This apart, the resolution dated 9.11.98 was passed under the Chairmanship and Secretaryship of the contemners 1 and 2. Therefore, contemner No.2 cannot escape punishment. The aforesaid conduct of the contemners substantially interfered with the course of justice and therefore contumacious. 14. The conduct, of the contemners resolving and pressurising the father of the petitioner to withdraw the case from the High Court is a clear abuse of the process of the Court calculated to obstruct due course of judicial proceeding and the administration of justice and it is clearly contumacious. 14. The conduct, of the contemners resolving and pressurising the father of the petitioner to withdraw the case from the High Court is a clear abuse of the process of the Court calculated to obstruct due course of judicial proceeding and the administration of justice and it is clearly contumacious. 15. Contemners in paragraph 5 of their counter' stated as under : "5. With regard to the statements made in paragraph 6 of the petition, the deponent respectfully submits that, respondent No.l and 2 vehemently objected to take action against Nukshimatong and Imliwapang in the fact of Notice dated 6.11.98 and this Hon'ble Court order dated 18th November, 1998. However, the Village Putu Menden declared to held 'Sungsama' (citizen meeting) on 28th November, 1998. And consequently they took action against Nukshimadong and Imliwapang as Sungsama decision always goes for majority. Respondent No.l and 3 being Chairman and Secretary of the Putu Menden, they were compelled to sign the resolution passed by the Sungsama against their will. Otherwise respondent No. 1 and 3 had no intention to violate or ignore this Hon'ble Court order dated 18.11.98." 16. Such plea of contemner is not at all acceptable. The plea that Chairman and Secretary of Village Council cannot control the citizen of village is clearly a ploy to circumvent the Court order by shifting the responsibility and avoid the punishment and clearly unacceptable. It is surprising that the contemner No. 1 is the father of the 5th respondent in Civil Rule No. 145 (K), 1997 whose appointment has been assailed. He has taken the law into his own hand to suit his personal interest by pressurising the villagers to pass resolution dated 2.11.93,9.11.98 and 28.11.98. He has stated in paragraph 3 of the counter that he has been holding the post of Village Council Chairman with effect from 22.10.98. It, therefore, appeared that the contemner No.l is behind the screen of the resolutions dated 2.11.98,9.11.98 and 28.11.98. This is an abuse of the process of power. 17. Contemners' also tendered an unconditional apology in terms of the following in para 7 of the counter: "7. It, therefore, appeared that the contemner No.l is behind the screen of the resolutions dated 2.11.98,9.11.98 and 28.11.98. This is an abuse of the process of power. 17. Contemners' also tendered an unconditional apology in terms of the following in para 7 of the counter: "7. That I have the highest respect for this Hon'ble Court and it is farthest from my mind to show any disregard or disrespect to this Hon'ble Court or any order passed by this Hon'ble Court, not to speak of showing any wilful disregard or wilful disobedience of this Hon'ble Court or any order or direction passed by this Hon'ble d Court. However, for any unintentional commission or omission which might have taken place in giving effect to the direction and or orders of this Hon'ble Court, I tender unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court for the same." 18. An apology tendered as would appear from paragraph 7 of the counter is not a product of remorse or contrition and it cannot be accepted, it is an apology merely to protect against rigours of law and it is no apology at all. (see MB Sanghi vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, (1991) 3 SCC 600 . 19. An unconditional apology while trying to justify the act (as in the case at hand) as would appear from the averments made in paragraph 5 of the counter as .referred to above cannot be accepted, (see Major General BM Bhattacharjee vs. Russel Estate Corporation, (1993) 2 SCC 533 ). 20. An apology is not a weapon of defence forged to purge the guilt of the offenders nor is it intended to operate as a panacea. It is intended to be evidence of real contriteness, the mainly consciousness of a wrong done, of an injury inflicted, and the earnest desire to make such reparation as lies in the wrongdoer's power, (see Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction & another, (1995) 3 SCC 507 ). 21. From the averment made in paragraph 7 of the counter of the contemners* the apology was not so in the instant case. On the other hand, after committing the deliberate act of contempt the contemners is not permitted to seek an unconditional apology. . 22. 21. From the averment made in paragraph 7 of the counter of the contemners* the apology was not so in the instant case. On the other hand, after committing the deliberate act of contempt the contemners is not permitted to seek an unconditional apology. . 22. Having said so, the-next question to be considered is whether the contemners by their deliberate action contrary to the direction of this Court undermine the dignity and majesty of the Court in the estimation of the public. Respect to the order passed by the Court is to uphold the dignity and majesty of law. Judiciary is the bedrock and handmade of orderly life and civilised society. If the people would lose faith injustice imparted by the highest Court of the land, woe be to orderly life. The fragment of civilised society would get broken up and crumble down. (See Delhi Development Authority, vs. Skipper Construction & another (1995) 3 SCC 507 ). 23. The following observation made by the Supreme Court in UP Sales Tax Service Association vs. Taxation Bar Association, Agra & others is pertinent to be noted in the prevent context: “If rule of law is to have any meaning and content, the authority of the Court or a statutory authority and the confidence of the public in them should not be allowed to be shaken, diluted or undermined. The Courts of justice and all Tribunal exercising judicial functions from the highest to the lowest are by their constitution entrusted with functions directly connected with the administration of justice. It is that expectation and confidence of all those, who have or are lively to have business in that Court, or Tribunal, which should be maintained so that the Court/Tribunal perform all their functions on a higher level of rectitude without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.” 24. In the instant case, the contemners are the Chairman and Secretary of the Village Council. In Nagaland, Village Council is recognised under the law and they administer the village and impart grass root level justice to the litigant. (see The Nagaland Code Volume II, Nagaland Village, Area and Regional Councils Act, 1970 (Nagaland Act 2 of 1971)). In the instant case, the contemners are the Chairman and Secretary of the Village Council. In Nagaland, Village Council is recognised under the law and they administer the village and impart grass root level justice to the litigant. (see The Nagaland Code Volume II, Nagaland Village, Area and Regional Councils Act, 1970 (Nagaland Act 2 of 1971)). To mention only few, section 14 of the Act entrusted the administration of justice of the village to the Village Council and it says that the Village Council constituted under the law in force from time to time shall administer justice within the village limit in accordance with the customary law and usages. 25. Section 15 (1) of the Act entrusts the entire village administration to the Village Council and it shall have full powers to deal with ordinary matters of internal administration of the village. Sub-section (2) of section 15 empowers the Village Council to discharge the following particular functions: "(a) to maintain law and order in the village, in serious cases offender may be arrested but such person should be handed over to nearest Administrative Officer or Police Station without undue delay; (b) to report to the nearest Administrative Officer occurrence of any unnatural death or serious accident; (c) to inform the presence of strangers, vagabonds, suspects to the nearest Administrative Officer or Police Station; (d) to enforce orders passed by the competent authority on the village as a whole; (e) to report out-break of epidemics to the nearest Administrative Officer or Medical Officer; (f) no transfer of immovable property shall be affected without the knowledge of Village Council. Written record of this shall be maintained by the local Administrative Officer, "(emphasis supplied) Apart from others, therefore, it was a duty casted upon the Village Council under the Act to enforce orders passed by the competent authority on the village as a whole. 26. In fact, almost, all the petty disputes are settled by the Village Councilsitting in Durbar. If the grass root level Court disobey and deliberately flouted the order of the superior Court as in the case at hand, the grass root level Court would not command any respect from the litigant public. 26. In fact, almost, all the petty disputes are settled by the Village Councilsitting in Durbar. If the grass root level Court disobey and deliberately flouted the order of the superior Court as in the case at hand, the grass root level Court would not command any respect from the litigant public. Being functioning as a grass root level Court, the functionary of the Village Council (in the instant case Putu Menden) and particularly the Chairman and Secretary of the Council it is their bounden duty to pay respect, obey and implement the order passed by the superior Court so as to uphold the supremacy of the rule of law and to command respect in the estimation of the public. Unfortunately, this is not so in the present case. This is very very unfortunate. An exemplary punishment is called for so as to deter the like minded village functionary in the near future. 27. In the present case, the condemners pressurised the father of the petitioner to withdraw the case imposed, if such action of the contemners is allowed to go unpunished, people would lose faith in the system of administration of justice and would desist from approaching the Court by spending time, money and energy to fight their legal battle, if such situation arises, it would have colossal impact on the administration of justice and the people would not knock the door of the Court to seek justice, but would settle score on the streets, where muscle power and money power would win, and the weak and the meek would suffer. That would be a death knell to the rule of law and social justice would receive a fatal blow. This Court cannot be a party to it arid, harsh though it may look, it is duty bound to award proper punishment to uphold the rule of law, how so high a person may be. (see J. Vasudevan vs. TR Dhananjaya, AIR 1996 SC 137 ). 28. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, the contemners are held guilty of the contempt of Courts and although it is both unfortunate and unpleasant, this Court is compelled to perform an unpleasant duty to uphold the / supremacy of the rale of law. 29. (see J. Vasudevan vs. TR Dhananjaya, AIR 1996 SC 137 ). 28. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, the contemners are held guilty of the contempt of Courts and although it is both unfortunate and unpleasant, this Court is compelled to perform an unpleasant duty to uphold the / supremacy of the rale of law. 29. In the instant case, contemner No. 1 Shri Imkongyabang, Chairman, Village Council, Molungkimong, District, Mokokchung, Nagaland is a key player, Being the father of the 5th respondent in Civil Rule No. 145 (K), 1997, he has engineered the resolution dated 2. 11.98, 9.11.98 and 28.11.98. His punishment must therefore be differentiated from others. Accordingly he is sentenced to simple imprisonment for 2 (two) months and a fine of Rs.l ,0007- (Rupees one thousand in default one month further imprisonment whereas contemner No. 2. Shri J. Tongzuk, Secretary, Village Council Molungkimong, District, Mokokchung, Nagaland and Shri I. Ladong, Secretary, Village Council Molungkimong, District Mokokchung, Nagaland are hereby sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment (SI) of 1 (one) month each and a fine of Rs. 1,000- (Rupees one thousand) each in default further to undergo 1 (one) month simple imprisonment. 30. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police, Mokokchung who shall execute this order after expiry of 1 (one) month a and submit its compliance to this Registry within 1 (one) week from the date of expiry of one month.