Judgment :- Heard both sides and perused the records including the affidavit, petition, counter affidavit and the reply affidavit. 2. The petitioner had applied for planning permission in respect of Plot No.26A, Udhayam Nagar Village, Velacherry comprised in Survey No.299/A. Planning permission had been granted by the Corporation of Chennai in PPA.No.D10/5845/2001, D10/398/2002, dated 05.02.2002. It is a fact not in dispute that the petitioner had not started and completed construction as per the said planning permission within the period of its validity. Without even obtaining a renewed planning permission, the petitioner started constructing a building which was sought to be prevented by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.15823 of 2007 praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to prevent the petitioner trust and their workers from completing the construction work as per the planning permit issued in PPA.No.D10/5845/2001, D10/ 398/2002, dated 05.02.2002. .3. This Court, after hearing both sides in the said writ petition, made an observation that the respondents had every right to prevent the petitioner from proceeding further with the construction as the planning permit granted had already expired and the petitioner had not obtained any renewal of the planning permit. However, this Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation or application to the respondents within a period of one week from the date of the order of this Court passed in the said writ petition, with a further direction to the respondents to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The above said order was passed by this Court on 27.04.2007. Due to the difficulty faced by the petitioner in getting the order copy, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of planning permission on 15.05.2007 enclosing a copy of the order of this Court. Thereafter, the respondents kept quiet for more than a year. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present contempt petition praying that the respondents should be punished contending that their act amount to willful disobedience. 4. Thereafter, the respondents kept quiet for more than a year. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present contempt petition praying that the respondents should be punished contending that their act amount to willful disobedience. 4. After receipt of notice in the contempt petition and during the pendency of the same, the first respondent has chosen to pass an order in his proceedings Z.O.X.T.P.C.No./5369/2008 dated 22.07.2008 rejecting the request made by the petitioner for renewal of building permission on the ground that the said land, according to him, stands vested with the Corporation of Chennai as it had been earmarked as Open Space Reserve land. For passing the said order, the first respondent has taken more than a years time. The first respondent, in his counter affidavit, has incorporated a clause tendering unconditional apology for the delay caused in passing the said order. The Court on a number of occasions, has come across similar pleas incorporated in the counter affidavits. An unconditional apology tendered need not in all cases result in exonerating the contemnor. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the respondent in a contempt petition is in the habit of not complying with the orders of the Court within the time stipulated in them and coming forward with a plea tendering unconditional apology, acceptance of the same and exonerating such respondent will not only encourage like minded persons but also at times, will amount of a mockery of justice. In this case, after going through the entire records, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no justification for the respondents to have kept quiet for more than a year even after the expiry of the time granted by this Court for compliance. .5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said reason assigned by the first respondent in his order is erroneous in so far as no document transferring the title of the property had been executed in favour of the Corporation of Chennai or its predecessor. The scope of enquiry in the contempt petition is limited to verifying whether the order passed by this Court has been willfully violated. This Court had directed the respondents to consider the representation and pass orders within the time stipulated in its order. It is true that the respondents have not passed orders within the time stipulated in the said order. This Court had directed the respondents to consider the representation and pass orders within the time stipulated in its order. It is true that the respondents have not passed orders within the time stipulated in the said order. So far as the reason assigned for the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that it is outside the scope of the enquiry in the contempt petition. It is further observed that it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the order of the first respondent dated 22.07.2008 in an appropriate proceeding before an appropriate forum. 6. For the said reasons, this Court hereby holds that the respondents are guilty of contempt. However, in view of the unconditional apology tendered, this Court wants to show leniency in the matter of punishment and admonishes the respondents. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is closed.