JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner, Bharat Prasad, has filed the instant application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the Opposite Parties and for adequately punishing them for their wilful disobedience of the order dated 1.8.2000 passed by Division Bench of this Court in M.J.C No. 139 of 1999(R). 2. For proper appreciation of the case few relevant facts are necessary to be discussed hereinafter. 3. For establishing the Bokaro Steel Plant vast tract of land was acquired by the Government resulting in displacement of large number of families. Apart, from payment of compensation to those whose land were acquired, it was decided between the Management of the Steel Plant and the Government that at least one member of each displaced family shall be given employment in the Steel Plant. For giving such appointment on compassionate ground, the displaced persons were divided into two categories. Category No. (i) consists of the persons whose entire lands and building were acquired and Category No. (ii) consists of those persons whose only land was acquired. It was decided that, the displaced persons belonging to Category No. (i) shall be given employment first and thereafter the persons of another category shall be considered for employment. The Steel Authority (in short the Company) prepared a panel in 1991 containing about 2010 names. From the panel large number of persons have already been appointed by the Steel Authority. However, large number of persons had made grievance that their names were not included in the panel. A Committee was constituted to consider their names and interview letters were also issued to them fixing dates for interview in April, 1992. However, the interview was cancelled. Later on, it was decided that till the panel is exhausted, no further selection shall be made for making appointment on compassionate ground. Being aggrieved, 382 persons filed writ petition being CWJC No. 2459/95(R) before this Court challenging the order dated 11.5.1995 whereby the future selection was stopped till the panel is exhausted. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and held that Respondents-Opposite Parties cannot refuse to consider the claims of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, Opposite Parties filed LPA No. 161/96(R). Another LPA No. 162/96(R) was filed by 542 persons whose names were included in the panel. Both the appeals were heard together by the Division Bench of this Court. Aggrieved by the said order, Opposite Parties filed LPA No. 161/96(R). Another LPA No. 162/96(R) was filed by 542 persons whose names were included in the panel. Both the appeals were heard together by the Division Bench of this Court. In terms of judgment dated 7th April, 1998, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was modified. The Division Bench directed the Opposite Parties to prepare a list containing names of displaced persons as per the scheme prepared by the Company. The list, so prepared shall be sent to the Director, Project Land & Rehabilitation, for verification, who shall get the bona fide status and claim of such persons verified and submit the report in connection therewith to the Company. The Company will thereafter hold interview for selection of suitable candidates and prepare a panel containing the names of selected displaced persons and the names shall be placed in two categories as mentioned hereinbefore. 4. It appears that earlier a contempt petition was filed being MJC No. 139 of 1999(R) by one of the writ petitioners alleging, inter alia, that the direction given in LPA No. 161 of 1996(R) was not complied with. The said contempt petition was disposed on 1.8.2000 with a direction to the Management of the Company to implement the order passed by this Court within the specified time. 5. The case of the petitioner in the instant contempt petition is that in spite of the direction given by this Court the direction was not being complied with. 6. A detailed show-cause was filed by Opposite Party No. 2, Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro on 21.9.2005. After considering the show- cause, this Court vide order dated 18.10.2005 directed the Managing Director either to comply the order of this Court in letter and spirit or to appear in person. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, supplementary show-cause has been filed by the Managing Director on 4.1.2006. 7. We have heard Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties-Company. 8. Mr. S.B. Gadodia, on the one hand, submitted that the direction passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 161 of 1996(R) and the order dated 1.8.2000 in MJC No. 139 of 1999(R) has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties-Company. 8. Mr. S.B. Gadodia, on the one hand, submitted that the direction passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 161 of 1996(R) and the order dated 1.8.2000 in MJC No. 139 of 1999(R) has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. On the other hand, Mr. Sinha submitted that direction of this Court has been fully complied with. 9. Before appreciating the rival submission of the learned Counsels, I would like to refer some of the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in dealing with the contempt matter. 10. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been enacted for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general and for due and proper administration of justice in the country. Undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of the law Courts but that by itself operates as string of caution and unless thus otherwise satisfied beyond doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law Courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Statute. It is well settled that powers under the Act should be exercised with utmost care and caution and that too rather sparingly and in the larger interest of the society, and for proper administration of the justice delivery system in the country. 11. In the case of Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal and Anr., 2000 AIR SCW 722. Their Lordships observed that jurisdiction to punish for contempt is summary but the consequences are serious. That is why the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings in contempt as also the jurisdiction to punish for contempt in spite of a case of contempt having been made out are both discretionary with the Court. Contempt generally and criminal contempt certainly is a matter between the Court and the alleged Contemnor. No one can compel or demand as of right initiation of proceedings for contempt. Certain principles have emerged. A jurisdiction in contempt shall be exercised only on a clear case having been made out. Mere technical contempt may not be taken note of. It is not personal glorification of a Judge in his office but an anxiety to maintain the efficacy of justice administration system effectively which dictates the conscience of a Judge to move or not to move in contempt jurisdiction. Mere technical contempt may not be taken note of. It is not personal glorification of a Judge in his office but an anxiety to maintain the efficacy of justice administration system effectively which dictates the conscience of a Judge to move or not to move in contempt jurisdiction. Often an apology is accepted and the felony condoned if the Judge feels convinced of the genuineness of the apology and the prestige of the Court having been restored. 12. In the case of Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1405 . Their Lordships observed : 15. It may also be noticed at this juncture that mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a "civil contempt" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act and lastly, in the event two interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation the act or acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise. 13. The Apex Court in another case of V.G. Nigam and Ors. v. Kedar Nath Gupta and Anr., , has held that the wilful conduct is the primary and basic ingredient before holding a person guilty of an offence. If prima facie the direction of a Court has been substantially complied with in letter and spirit then Court should be very cautious in exercising jurisdiction under the said Act. 14. In the instant case, as noticed above, it is the specific case of the sole Petitioner that the Opposite Parties have not complied the order dated 1.8.2000 passed in MJC No. 139 of 1999 (R), inasmuch as, he along with 24 other persons have not yet been appointed. For better appreciation paras 9 and 10 of the Contempt Petition is re-produced hereinbelow : 9. That it is stated and submitted that out of 207 persons, 51 persons were appointed in the month of June, 2002; 42 persons were appointed in the month of July, 2003; 41 persons were appointed in the month of January, 2004 and 37 persons were appointed in July, 2004. That it is stated and submitted that out of 207 persons, 51 persons were appointed in the month of June, 2002; 42 persons were appointed in the month of July, 2003; 41 persons were appointed in the month of January, 2004 and 37 persons were appointed in July, 2004. Thus, 171 persons were appointed out of the said list of 207 persons. 10. That it is further stated and submitted that after excluding the persons who have crossed the age of superannuation and/or who have died and/or who were not medically fit, 24 persons including the petitioner, out of the said list of 207 persons, have not, as yet, been appointed. 15. In the supplementary show-cause filed by Opposite Party No. 2 on 4.01.2006, it has been categorically stated that all those 24 persons have been given appointment and 23 of them have already joined. Paras 4 to 9 of the supplementary affidavit are quoted hereinbelow : 4. That out of the remaining list of 27 persons 24 persons being those listed by the petitioners in this Con-tempts Case have been given appointment and 23 of them have joined. In the case of 24th candidate namely Sri San-jay Kumar Singh has sought extension of time to join. DPLR has also written to BSL asking for extension of time in his case vide his letter No. 377 dated 26.12.2005. 5. That the present contempt application has been filed on behalf of the aforesaid 24 persons as given in Annexure 5 to- the Contempt Petition. 6. That remaining three persons were called for interview on 2.12.2005 but they did not turn up and another date for interview was fixed on 19.12.2005. 7. That on 19.12.2005 two out of three persons namely Md. Jamaluddin Ansari and Kamdev Mahto appeared in the interview who have been selected for the post of the Khalasi and have been referred to the Medical Board. Their joining is subject to their medical fitness. Medical Board has been held on 23.12.2005. They will be appointed after receipt of medical fitness report as has been done for all the cases covered under the Honble Courts order dated 7.04.1998 passed in LPA Nos. 161 and 162 and order dated 1.08.2000 passed in MJC No. 139 of 99(R). 8. That the third candidate, Din Md. Ansari, has expired as confirmed by DPLR. 9. They will be appointed after receipt of medical fitness report as has been done for all the cases covered under the Honble Courts order dated 7.04.1998 passed in LPA Nos. 161 and 162 and order dated 1.08.2000 passed in MJC No. 139 of 99(R). 8. That the third candidate, Din Md. Ansari, has expired as confirmed by DPLR. 9. That the Opposite Party once again submits that the order of this Honble Court has thus been bonafidely complied with in letter and spirit. 16. The aforementioned statements made in the supplementary show cause have not been controverted of disputed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, clear that the direction of this Court given in the order has been complied with in letter and spirit. Prima facie we are satisfied that the opposite parties have not willfully or deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court. 17. Considering the entire facts of the case and the show cause filed by the opposite parties, no case of contempt is made out. Hence the instant proceedings is dropped.