V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent. This contempt Case is filed to punish the respondent herein for violating the orders of this Court dated 2-5-2000 granted in w. P. M. R 8691/2000 in W. P. No. 6583/2000. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed the writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent herein in refusing to grant provisional affiliation to the petitioner-Society for the academic year 1999-2000 for establishment of a college of computer and Management vide its letters dated 14-2-2000 and 22-3-2000 as illegal and consequently declare that the respondent cannot refuse to grant affiliation to it on the grounds which are already approved by the aicte. ( 3 ) THE petitioner also filed W. P. M. P. No. 8691/2000 seeking an interim direction to the respondent herein to grant provisional affiliation to the Society in terms of approval of AICTE letter dated 17-12-1999 for the academic year 1999-2001 to start MCA course pending disposal of the writ petition. ( 4 ) FEW facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows:- The respondent- university, by letter No. 3147/h/1220/99- 2000/acad. III-1, dated 18-11-1998 issued no Objection Certificate to the petitioner-Society on the basis of the recommendation of the Inspection Commission for starting mca course along with other colleges and directed the society to approach All India council for the Technical Education for permission to start the programme during the academic year 1999-2000. Based on the no Objection Certificate issued by the respondent, petitioner-Society approached all India Council for Technical Education, for starting the college. After due consultations with the Government of andhra Pradesh and the respondent-University and on the basis of the recommendations of the Sub-Committee of all India Board of Computer Sciences and expert Committee accorded approval by its letter dated 17-12-1999 to Azeezia educational and Welfare Society to start the course in Master in Computer Application (3 years Full Time) with annual intake of 30 students during the academic year 1999-2000, provided minimum number of academic days as decided by the concerned university could be made up from then on, failing which the said approval may be deemed approval for the academic year 2000-2001. The said approval was accorded subject to fulfillment of general conditions specified in Annexure-I and as per the norms and standards of AICTE. The said approval was accorded subject to fulfillment of general conditions specified in Annexure-I and as per the norms and standards of AICTE. This approval was given only for one academic year with a condition that the Management shall fulfill all requirements to facilitate the expert Committee to visit and assess whether the norms and standards as stipulated by AICTE are fulfilled or not and then only the continuation of the permission or otherwise shall be intimated. It is further stated in the said letter that in the event of infringement, contravention or non-compliance of the norms and standards as prescribed by AICTE, the Council shall take further action to withdraw the approval and the liability arising out of such withdrawal will be solely that of the management. The said letter was marked to the respondent-University requesting him to complete the process for affiliation for facilitating the admissions by the petitioner- society. In the said letter that the petitioner- society was directed to shift the college from the temporary address to the permanent accommodation after approval by the Council within two years from the date of the approval and the college shall not shift to any unapproved location. ( 5 ) BASED on the said approval and the letter of the Commissioner for Technical education dated 10-1-2000, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders in g. O. Ms. No. 8 Higher Education (E. C. I.) department, dated 17-1-2000 permitting the azeezia Educational and Welfare Society for conducting MCA (FT) programme permitting the petitioner-Society to establish the proposed college temporarily at building Nos. 50 and 51, Mahaboob mansion, Malakpet, Hyderabad with annual intake on condition that the management shall shift the college to the permanent accommodation at Sy. No. 381, kanakamamidi, Moinabad Mandal, apart from the other conditions and the Registrar of the respondent-University was directed to give affiliation to the petitioner-Society. ( 6 ) HAVING received the orders from the aicte and the Government the University vide its letter dated 14-2-2000 informed the petitioner that its request for grant of affiliation to start MCA programme cannot be agreed to by the University in view of the decision taken by the Standing committee of the Academic Senate at its meeting held on 9-2-2000 based on the recommendation of the University inspection Commission contrary to its own proceedings dated 18-11-1998 wherein No objection Certificate was given to the petitioner-Society. The respondent by another letter dated 22-3-2000 informed the petitioner that the Standing Committee of the Academic Senate at its meeting held on 10-3-2000 considered the report of inspection Commission that visited petitioner-College for grant of provisional affiliation and resolved that its request could not be agreed to in view of the recommendation of the Inspection commission that the premises is not conducive for running the said academic programme. Questioning these two letters dated 17-2-2000 and 22-3-2000 of the respondent, the petitioner filed the writ petition along with WPMP No. 8691/2000 seeking interim direction to the respondent- university to grant provisional affiliation to azeezia College of Computers and management, established by the petitioner- society at building Nos. 50 and 51, mahaboob Mansion, Malakpet, Hyderabad for conducting MCA course for the academic Year 2000-2001 in terms of approval of AICTE letter dated 17-12-1999, pending W. P. No. 6583/2000 on the file of the High Court. After hearing the arguments of both the Counsel and considering the rival contentions of the petitioner and the respondent, this Court passed the interim order. ( 7 ) PURSUANT to the notice issued before admission, counter is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent-University reiterating its earlier stand. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the arguments on both the sides, I passed the following order on 2-5-2000. "the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that All India council for Technical Education accorded approval to the petitioner-Educational and Welfare Society for establishment of Azeezia College of Computers and Management, perm/add:survey No. 381, kanakamamidi Village, Moinabad mandal, Ranga Reddy District, TEMP add: Building Nos. 50 and 51, mahaboob Mansion, Malakpet, hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, during the academic year 1999-2000 for the course of Master in Computer applications (MCA) three years full time Course with annual intake of 30 provided that the minimum number of academic days as decided by the osmania University could be made from that date failing which the approval may be deemed for the academic year 2000-2001 for the said course. The said approval was subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. Pursuant to the said approval from All india Council for Technical Education, new Delhi, in its letter No. AP-42/ etapr (MCA)/99 dated 17-12-1999 and the letter of the Commissioner of technical Education dated 10-1-2000, the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by Higher Education (E. C. I.) Department issued orders in g. O. Ms. Pursuant to the said approval from All india Council for Technical Education, new Delhi, in its letter No. AP-42/ etapr (MCA)/99 dated 17-12-1999 and the letter of the Commissioner of technical Education dated 10-1-2000, the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by Higher Education (E. C. I.) Department issued orders in g. O. Ms. No. 8 dated 17-1-2000 permitting the petitioner to make admissions provisionally pending inspection by the Commissioner of technical Education for the academic year 1999-2000 for conducting MCA (FT) Programme temporarily at building Nos. 50 and 51, Mahaboob mansion, Malakpet, Hyderabad. The Registrar of the Osmania university vide his letter dated 14-2-2000 informed the petitioner that the grant of provisional affiliation for starting of MCA/mba Programme during 1999-2000 academic year cannot be agreed to by the University in view of the decision taken by the standing Committee of the Academic senate at its meeting held on 9-2-2000 based on the recommendation of the university Inspection Commission. The recommendations of the said commission is to the effect that the grant of provisional affiliation to azeezia College of the Computers and management for running MCA at the premises of Mahaboob Mansion, cannot be recommended. It is further stated that the said premises are situate in the market yard and it is not congenial for running the college. In the building bearing Nos. 50 and 51, mahaboob Mansion, Malakpet, hyderabad, itself the All India Council for Technical Education accorded approval and the Government of andhra Pradesh also issued orders in g. O. Ms. No. 8 dated 17-1-2000 permitting the petitioner to make admissions provisionally in the said premises and therefore the rejection by the second respondent-Osmania university by its letters dated 14-2-2000 and 22-3-2000 is contrary to its own initial approval. The refusal to grant affiliation to the petitioner- Educational and Welfare Society on the ground that the premises are not congenial for running the College is, prima facie, illegal and contrary to the government s order dated 17-1-2000 and the All India Council for Technical education approval dated 17-12-1999. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and balance of convenience, there shall be interim direction as prayed for. . . . . . . Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and balance of convenience, there shall be interim direction as prayed for. . . . . . . " ( 9 ) QUESTIONING the said order dated 2-5-2000 made in WPMP No. 8691/2000, the respondent filed Writ Appeal No. 262/2000 and a Division Bench of this Court consisting of the Hon ble the Chief Justice and Hon ble Sri Justice J. Chelameswar, dismissed the Writ Appeal on 14-6-2000 by observing that all interim orders are subject to final orders in the writ petition and we do not find it to be a fit case to interfere in appeal. ( 10 ) SURPRISINGLY, the respondent- university filed WVMP No,1599/2000 on the very next day of the dismissal of the writ Appeal i. e. , on 15-6-2000 seeking vacation of the order dated 2-5-2000 as if it was an ex parte order passed and without giving an opportunity to the respondent-University. ( 11 ) BEFORE the above petition is posted for hearing, the petitioner-Society filed c. C. No. 1214/2000 on 17-7-2000 as the respondent deliberately and wantonly violated the orders of this Court dated 2-5-2000. Having heard the arguments in the Contempt Case as well as in the vacate stay petition by order dated 18-9-2000, I dismissed the vacate stay petition by holding that the said order is not an ex parte order, but an order on merits after hearing both the parties and it was confirmed by a division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal no. 262/2000. ( 12 ) COMING to the Contempt case, having surveyed the entire factual background, I recorded a finding "i am satisfied that the Respondent-University wilfully and wantonly disobeyed the orders of this Court and having filed the Writ appeal and having said the same, I categorically recorded a finding that the registrar of the respondent-University wilfully and wantonly disobeyed the orders of this Court. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the Registrar, respondent-University as to why he should not be punished under the Contempt of courts Act by directing his personal appearance in the Court on 27-9-2000. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the Registrar, respondent-University as to why he should not be punished under the Contempt of courts Act by directing his personal appearance in the Court on 27-9-2000. While appearing in the Court, he filed an affidavit reiterating his stand that the university has taken a decision to reject the provisional affiliation to the petitioner-Society relying on the inspection reports dated 2-2-2000 and 3-3-2000 on the decision of the Standing Committee of the Academic senate and the legal opinion of the Standing counsel. He has also stated that the university has not taken a decision wilfully, deliberately or intentionally and the said decision is bonafide one relying on the facts mentioned supra. In Para 4 of the affidavit except offering unconditional apology, he did not come forward to implement the orders of this Court even at this belated stage. ( 13 ) NOW in this factual background it has to be seen whether the contemnor has to be convicted for flouting the orders or he has to be let off. The case of the respondent-University as per letters dated 9-2-2000 and 23-2-2000, temporary building shown by the petitioner-Society at Mahaboob mansion is not conducive for running academic programme even though the inspection team of the AICTE visited the place accorded permission to start the college temporarily at that premises and the government issued orders permitting the petitioner-Society to start the college at this premises. The question whether the respondent-University is empowered to take objection with regard to temporary premises in which the petitioner-Society was permitted to open the course by AICTE as well as the Government for granting affiliation and whether it can re-open the issue at that stage has to be gore into at the time of final hearing of the Writ Petition. For deciding the issue in question i. e. , whether the Registrar of the respondent-University flouted the interim orders passed by this Court as confirmed by a division Bench of this Court pending disposal of the Writ Petition, it is suffice to state that the respondent-University in its proceedings dated 18-11-1998 issued No objection Certificate for starting MCA programme to the petitioner-Society apart from other institutions on the basis of the report submitted by the Inspection commission dated 12-11-1998. Now the respondent in the counter dated 18-9-2000 filed in the Contempt case has taken stand in Para 5 that the University issued No objection Certificate only to start a college at Varkala village, Chinthapally Mandal, nalgonda District. The Inspection commission in its report dated 12-11-1998 recommended for issuance of No Objection certificates by stating as under: (A) They have got Rs,61,13,748/- in the form of FDR and Current Account. (b) They owned a land over an extent of Ac. 3-00. (c) They have got 11,344 Sq. ft. area of constructed building in blocks for which registered lease deed document is available. ( 14 ) FROM this it is evident that the inspection Commission is conscious of the fact that the petitioner-College, if permission is granted, will be starting the academic programme in the temporary building admeasuring 11,344 Sq. ft. during the academic year 1999-2000. Though the inspection report does not throw any light where this accommodation is available, it has to be presumed from the orders of the aicte dated 17-12-1999 and G. O. Ms. No. 8 dated 17-1-2000 wherein a specific reference was made to the present accommodation while giving permission to start the college. It is not the case of the respondent-University that the present accommodation shown by the petitioner-Society is different from that of the accommodation shown to the Inspection Commission at the time of its inspection on 12-11-1998 before issuance of the No Objection Certificate. The very fact that the report of the Inspection commission refers to the temporary accommodation should necessarily be correlated to the present accommodation where the petitioner-Society intends to start the programme. Hence, the stand taken by the respondent-University in its counter dated 18-9-2000 that No Objection certificate was given only to start the college at Varkala, Chintapally Mandal, nalgonda District, but not at the premises in question temporarily for the academic year for which the respondent-University issued No Objection Certificate i. e. , for 1999-2000. When once the temporary premises shown to the Inspection commission on 12-11-1998 is traceable to the present accommodation, the respondent-University is estopped from going back on its commitment while issuing the No Objection Certificate and contend that the accommodation is not conducive for running the academic programme. When once the temporary premises shown to the Inspection commission on 12-11-1998 is traceable to the present accommodation, the respondent-University is estopped from going back on its commitment while issuing the No Objection Certificate and contend that the accommodation is not conducive for running the academic programme. Be that as it may, this Court while admitting the Writ Petition granted interim direction as prayed for by passing a detailed order in wpmp No. 8691/2000 dated 2-5-2000 which was extracted supra. A reading of the interim order makes it abundantly dear that the University was directed to grant provisional affiliation for the college to be started by the petitioner-Society at building nos. 50 and 51, Mahaboob Mansion, malakpet, Hyderabad, for the academic year 1999-2000 in no uncertain terms, the respondent-University questions the correctness of the said order in Writ Appeal no. 262/2000 and the same was dismissed. After dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the interim order has become final and the same has to be implemented subject to the result in the Writ Petition during its pendency. But the respondent-University invented a novel method of filing a vacate stay petition having lost the Writ Appeal which was unheard of. Be that as it may, having dismissed the said application and having held that the respondent-University failed to comply with the orders of this court, recorded a finding that the refusal to implement the orders of the Court is nothing but deliberate, wanton and wilful and gave a show-cause notice to the registrar, respondent-University why he should not be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act by directing his personal appearance on 27-9-2000. Even at this stage, in the counter filed on 26-9-2000 except stating that the university acted bona fide in terms of aicte approval and Unni Krishnan s case and the provisional affiliation refused to the petitioner-Society relying on the Inspection reports dated 2-2-2000 and 3-3-2000 and the decision of the Standing Committee of the academic Senate and the legal opinion of the Standing Counsel, he did not come forward to implement the orders of this court even at this belated stage. As far as the first contention of the contemnor that the respondent-University has acted bona fide in terms of AICTE is nothing but utter falsehood and the same is evident from the proceedings of the AICTE dated 17-12-1999. As far as the first contention of the contemnor that the respondent-University has acted bona fide in terms of AICTE is nothing but utter falsehood and the same is evident from the proceedings of the AICTE dated 17-12-1999. While the AICTE giving approval for establishment of a college in Sy. No. 381, kanakamamidi village, Moinabad Mandal, ranga Reddy District, permitted the petitioner-Society to start the academic programme for the year 1999-2000 with an intake of 30 students temporarily at building Nos. 50 and 51, Mahaboob mansion, Malakpet, Hyderabad subject to the condition that the college has to be shifted to the permanent accommodation within two, years from the date of the approval and in the meantime, the college shall not shift to any unapproved location under any circumstances. This fact is reflected in the permission given by the government in G. O. Ms. No. 8 dated 17-1-2000. Taking into consideration the orders passed by the AICTE and the government, I granted interim direction by order dated 2-5-2000. Accordingly, I reject the first contention raised by the contemnor. ( 15 ) THE second contention is that he has acted as per the Unnikrishnan s case (supra ). The principles laid down in unnikrishnan s case (supra) have to be followed by all the authorities concerned. In this case, AICTE as well as the Government approved the premises in question for establishment of the college temporarily. In fact, Inspection Commission report dated 12-11-1998 on the basis of which No objection Certificate was given by the university on 18-11-1998 has categorically taken into consideration while recommending the case of the petitioner for issuance of the No Objection Certificate, temporary accommodation secured by the petitioner-Society for establishment of the college in the year 1999-2000. How far the respondent-University can go back on its earlier decision, has to be decided at the time of the final hearing of the Writ Petition. Further, it is rather astonishing to note from the affidavit dated 26-9-2000 that the standing Committee of the Academic senate has taken a decision on the basis of the legal opinion of the Standing Counsel. From this it is evident that the Standing counsel, who is expected to uphold the majesty of law being the Officer of the court, intended in giving wrong advice to his client, which resulted into vexatious litigation. From this it is evident that the Standing counsel, who is expected to uphold the majesty of law being the Officer of the court, intended in giving wrong advice to his client, which resulted into vexatious litigation. I would like to deal with the case of the Standing Counsel separately for giving an advice to flout the orders of this court. ( 16 ) IN the light of the continued defiant attitude that is being exhibited by the contemnor, I have no option except to hold the action of the contemnor is nothing but flagrant violation of the order of this Court and it is not a case for accepting the unconditional apology offered by him to save himself from the contempt proceedings but not with any real intention. If the intention of the contemnor in offering unconditional apology is a bona fide one, nothing prevented him from implementing the order of this Court even at this belated stage as the approval given by the AICTE in its proceedings dated 17-12-1999 enures for the academic year 2000-2001 if the petitioner-Society cannot start the programme during the academic year 1999-2000. Accordingly, the apology offered by the contemnor is rejected and he is sentenced to Simple Imprisonment till the rise of the Court and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, he shall undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks.