Judgment Bakhshish Kaur, J. 1. Sarvashri Prem Tuli, Parminder Singh and other petitioners have filed this contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt or Courts Act (in short `the Act) for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilfully and intentionally violating the order passed in COCP No. 336 of 2000 in pursuant to the decision in CWP No. 7601 of 1999. 2. The petitioners had filed the Civil Writ Petition No. 7601 of 1999 for issuance of a writ quashing Annexures P-1 to P-4 attached therewith the writ petition whereby the petitioners were debarred from appearing in any examination for three years. The writ petition was disposed of on 3.11.2000 vide order Annexure P-2 with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioners within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It was also ordered that the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the order, if so desire, amongst others, on the grounds and cause which had been taken in the writ petition. According to the petitioners, the directions contained therein were not complied with, therefore, they had filed COCP No. 336 of 2001 under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. It was disposed of on December 07, 2000 by observing as under :- "Learned counsel for the respondents has acknowledged certain omissions on the part of the respondents. It is not necessary to delineate the same in view of the fact that it is now agreed between the parties that the appellate order passed by the Examination Committee shall be withdrawn forthwith and that the appeal preferred by the petitioners shall be reconsidered. The reconsideration will be effected on 13.12.2000. It will not be imperative on the petitioners to participate in the appellate proceedings. However, if they so choose, they may appear before the Examination Committee on 13.12.2000 at 11-00 A.M. Whether or not the petitioners appear before the Examination Committee, the appeal preferred by the petitioners shall be disposed of by passing a speaking order, on or before 20.12.2000." 3. The petitioner, again not satisfied with the orders passed by the competent authority, has filed the present contempt petition. 4. The respondents have controverted the grounds and the averments on the basis of which the contempt petition has been filed. The petitioner, again not satisfied with the orders passed by the competent authority, has filed the present contempt petition. 4. The respondents have controverted the grounds and the averments on the basis of which the contempt petition has been filed. According to them, the students had appeared before the Examination Committee and the Examination Committee had given then an opportunity to put forward their case. The petitioners had requested that their punishment be reduced and their result of the May, 1998 examination should be declared. Keeping in view their request, the Committee decided to reduce the punishment and permitted the petitioners to take the examination of 2000. It is also pleaded, inter alia, that the result of examination taken by the petitioners in December, 1998 could not be declared in view of the fact that on 9.3.1999, they were debarred for a period of three years on account of the `unfair means case and, therefore, from June, 1998, they were debarred from appearing in any examination up to June, 2001. The case of the petitioners was decided in terms of the order passed by this Court vide Annexure P-1. 5. I have heard Shri P.S. Goraya, learned counsel for the petitioners. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 6. Shri P.S. Goraya, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the pleas contained in the grounds of appeal before the appellate Authority, were not considered. Thus, the order Annexure P-3 cannot be termed as a speaking order. 7. In my view, the order Annexure P-3 cannot be made the basis for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents because vide order Annexure P-3, the appeal which was pending before the respondents, has been decided on January 3, 2001 in compliance with the order Annexure P-1. A special meeting of the Examination Committee was held on 13.12.2000 under the chairmanship of Technical Education and Industrial Training (hereinafter referred to as `the Board) keeping in view the directions given by this Court concerning the hearing of the appeal submitted by the students. 8. After hearing both the sides, the Unfairness Means Committee (hereinafter referred to as `the UMC) has debarred the students till December, 2000 examination. Not satisfied with the decision of the UMC, students had filed CWP No. 7601 of 1999 whereby the petitioners were allowed to prefer appeal against the decision of the UMC. 8. After hearing both the sides, the Unfairness Means Committee (hereinafter referred to as `the UMC) has debarred the students till December, 2000 examination. Not satisfied with the decision of the UMC, students had filed CWP No. 7601 of 1999 whereby the petitioners were allowed to prefer appeal against the decision of the UMC. As the Examination Committee meeting is held biannually, appeals of the students could not be heard till the students filed COCP No. 336 of 2000 wherein this Court directed whether or not the petitioners appear before the Examination Committee, the appeal preferred by the petitioners shall be disposed of by passing a speaking order on or before 20.12.2000. Accordingly, the meeting was convened and an opportunity was given to these students to put forward their appeal. They prayed that keeping their future in view, their punishment be reduced and their result of May, 1998 i.e. the examination in which they were debarred from appearing till May, 2001, be declared. Thus, considering the request of the students the Examination Committee observed as under :- "Keeping their future and also that the students had realised their mistake, the Examination Committee ruled as under :- i) These students be allowed to appear in the exams. currently underway instead of May, 2001. ii) They were exempted from filing up examination form immediately for paucity of time. However, they were directed to submit examination form with requisite fee (without late fee within a month). iii) Their prayer that their May, 1998 result should be declared was not accepted as a candidate punished for UMC has to appear in all subjects afresh and a new precedent cannot be created for them. After hearing the decision of the Examination Committee, the students requested that their Examination Centre be shifted from Adesh Polytechnic Muktsar to some other centre. The Examination Committee agreed to the request and directed the Registrar to let them appear in any institution other than Adesh Polytechnic Muktsar." 9. In this way, the Examination Committee considered the case of the petitioners and passed appropriate orders taking into consideration their future and that they have realised their mistake. Thus, the directions given vide orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 in CWP No. 7601 of 1999 and COCP No. 336 of 2000 having been complied with, no case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. Thus, the directions given vide orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 in CWP No. 7601 of 1999 and COCP No. 336 of 2000 having been complied with, no case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. If at all, the petitioners are not satisfied with the decision given by the Examination Committee, as being not favourable to them, they are at liberty to avail appropriate remedy available to them in accordance with law, but the case certainly does not fall within the ambit of contempt jurisdiction. 10. It is only where a clear case of contemptuous conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnors must be punished as observed in Nivail Singh Dhillon v. Shan Singh Bassi, 1971 PLR 344 (P&H). The powers under the Contempt of Courts Act being of extraordinary nature, should be exercised sparingly. Further that the contempt proceedings, though not criminal are of the quasi-criminal nature and where there is a reasonable doubt, the person charged with the contempt is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court should be reluctant to exercise the powers, particularly in a civil contempt. 11. It is also well-settled that in order to punish a person for contempt of Court, it must not only be established in a court of law that the order of the court has been violated, but also that such violation has been wilful. Whether wilful or intentional defiance on the part of the respondents is made out even prima facie in this case? The answer to this query, in my opinion, is in the negative. The delay in considering the matter cannot be due to any wilful default on the part of the respondents. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule against the respondents is discharged.