Judgment :- This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for contempt of Court for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 17. 2004, made in O.A.No.532 of 2004, in C.S.No.875 of 2002. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is the second defendant in the suit and the second respondent in the original application. The respondent had filed the Original Application in O.A.No.532 of 2004, in C.S.No.875 of 2002, praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the applicant and other Trustees from convening any meeting of the Board of the Trustees, on 7. 2004 or on any other future date. On 17. 2004, this Court had passed an order directing both the parties not to indulge in any activity prejudicial to the interest of the Trust and that they should not indulge in any banking operation, with regard to the Trust funds, until the disposal of the interim application. 3. It is further stated that after the order had been passed by this Court, the respondent had issued a legal notice to the applicant and the other Trustees, on 8. 2004. The applicant had issued a suitable reply to the said notice, on 28. 2004. However, the respondent had opened an account in Indian Bank, Koovathur Branch, with account No.9789, in the name of Delta School of Nursing, which is a Unit of Dalit Liberation Education Trust, without the knowledge of the Board of Trustees. The respondent had issued a cheque for Rs.5,000/- by cheque No.285341, dated 28. 2004, and the said cheque has been encashed by the payee. Further, the respondent had operated the bank account on many other occasions inspite of the order of injunction passed by this Court, on 17. 2004. Having organised a parallel Trust in the year, 2001, the respondent had started to mismanage the Dalit Liberation Education Trust, its funds and its properties. Further, without consulting the Board of Trustees and without getting the necessary permission from this Court, the respondent had leased out the farm land properties of the Dalit Liberation Education Trust to third parties for Prawn culture farming, contrary to the trust deed. Thus, the respondent has committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the orders passed by this Court, on 17. 2004. 4. Thus, the respondent has committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the orders passed by this Court, on 17. 2004. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it has been submitted that the Ministry of Health, Government of India, New Delhi, has sanctioned funds for running the Nursing School by the Dalit Liberation Education Trust. Since it was a Government of India funded project, a separate Savings Bank Account was opened in the Indian Overseas Bank, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. 5. It has been further submitted that after the shifting of the administrative office to the Delta Campus in Kadalur Village, in the year 2001, an account in the name of Delta School of Nursing was opened in Indian Bank, Koovathur branch, and the funds were utilised for running a Nursing Institute. As such, there is no illegality or irregularity committed in the operation of the said account, inasmuch as the funds received from the Government of India are deposited in the said account and it was jointly operated by the respondent and the acting Principal Mrs.Mabel Franklin. After receipt of the communication, with regard to the order passed by this Court, all operations were suspended. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent had operated the bank account despite the order passed by this Court, on 17. 2004, is false and incorrect. 6. It is also false to state that the respondent had let out farm lands belonging to Dalit Liberation Education Trust in Kadalur Village, on lease, after the passing of the order by this Court. There is no such lease subsisting, as alleged by the petitioner. The Interim Administrator appointed by this Court had taken charge of the Trust properties in the month of October 2007 and the land in question is in the possession of the Trust. No such activity, as alleged by the petitioner, has been carried on after the passing of the order by this Court. The respondent has great respect and faith in the orders passed by this Court and as he is a law abiding citizen, he will never commit an act or omission wilfully disobeying the orders passed by this Court. However, it has been submitted that if this Court finds that the respondent had committed contempt by some act or omission, he may be pardoned for such act or omission as he is tendering his unconditional apology. However, it has been submitted that if this Court finds that the respondent had committed contempt by some act or omission, he may be pardoned for such act or omission as he is tendering his unconditional apology. 7. Considering the contentions raised on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to punish the respondent for contempt of Court. Nothing has been shown by the petitioner to substantiate his claims that the respondent had wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court, on 17. 2004, made in O.A.No.532 of 2004, in C.S.No.875 of 2002. Even though it has been admitted by the respondent that certain bank accounts had been operated before the order was passed by this Court and certain lands had been leased out in the interest of the Trust, no such acts were committed after the order had been passed by this Court, on 17. 2004. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the respondent had wilfully disobeyed the order, dated 17. 2004. Therefore, the contempt petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Sub Applications Nos.365, 366 and 367 of 2004 are also dismissed. Consequently, connected Sub Application Nos.365, 366 and 367 of 2004 are also dismissed. No costs.