ORDER Deepak Verma, J : Sri K.B. Navalagirnath, learned Counsel appeared for complainant and Sri Dinesh Rao, learned Government Advocate for accused. 2. This is a Contempt Petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act") on the ground that the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.8116/2008 on 12.06.2008 has not been complied with. In the aforesaid Writ Petition, a challenge was made by the complainant along with other petitioners to Annexure - A Order dated 05.06.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Religious and Charitable Endowments, Bangalore, appointing the accused as the Administrator of Shri. Malatesh (Mylaralinga) Temple (hereinafter shall be referred to as "Temple"). 3. On 12.06.2008 when W.P.No.8116/2008 came up for hearing. The following interim order came to be passed by learned Single Judge: Issue Rule. Interim stay of Annexure-"A" Sd/-. Judge 4. After passing of this order on 12.06.2008, an application was filed by the complainant before the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments, vile letter dated 13.06.2008 for implementing the interim order passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition. The said order was forwarded in the accused by the Commissioner with endorsement of necessary further action. It has also been averred by the complainant that, he, had personally approached the accused and given a copy of the interim order requesting her not to interfere with the administration of the temple. Thereafter on several occasions, the complainants and other members of the Panch Committee said to have approached the accused and requested her not to interfere with the administration of the temple, especially in the light of the interim order passed by this Court and allow them to function without any interference, but no heed to the interim order passed by this Court was given to by the accused. 5. It has also been contended by the complainant that instead of allowing the complainant and other members of the Panch Committee to function them in the administration of the temple, accused had deployed police persons so as to obstruct the complainant and other members of the committee from discharging their duties as trustees. Looking to the adamant attitude of the accused, an Interlocutory Application bad been filed in the pending W.P.No.8116/2008 with a prayer for necessary direction to the accused. The said application came up for hearing before this Court on 28.08.2008. Looking to the adamant attitude of the accused, an Interlocutory Application bad been filed in the pending W.P.No.8116/2008 with a prayer for necessary direction to the accused. The said application came up for hearing before this Court on 28.08.2008. After hearing the learned Counsel for parties at length, learned Single Judge was pleased to pass a detailed order on IA., filed in the Writ Petition, the operative part of which is reproduced hereinbelow: 7. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following order: 1) Subject to further orders of this Court, the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner is directed to forthwith, remove the locks on the Hundies seized by her as well as to open all the locks placed by her and hand over the same to the petitioners herein. 2) The respondents shall not interfere with the administration of the Temple by the petitioners. 6. We have been given to understand that pursuant to the said order passed by this Court on 28.08.2008, accused had thereafter handed over the charge of the temple and its office to the complainant and other members of the Trust on 29.08.2008. This Contempt Petition was already filed on 27.06.2008 complaining non-compliance of the interim order passed by this Court on 12.06.2008. This matter had come up before the Division Bench on 01.08.2008. On the said date, notice was directed to be issued to the accused and the Government Advocate was directed to take instructions on behalf of the accused. Matter was thereafter listed for hearing on 15:09.2008. On the sail date, counter was filed by the accused. However, despite filing of the counter by the accused, this Court was prima facie of the opinion that there has been a wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 12.06.2008. Hence, it was a fit case to frame 'charges against the accused. Matter was accordingly directed to be posted for framing of charges on 13.10.2008. The respondent - accused was also directed to be remain present on the said date. 7. On 13.10.2008 when matter had come up for hearing on the question of framing of charges, learned Counsel appearing for accused prayed for time to advance arguments, before the Court proceeded to frame charge against the accused. That is how the matter was posted for hearing today. On 14.10.2008, a further counter affidavit has been filed by the accused, Smt. Leelavathi. 8. That is how the matter was posted for hearing today. On 14.10.2008, a further counter affidavit has been filed by the accused, Smt. Leelavathi. 8. In the earlier counter affidavit filed by her she has submitted that she has utmost regard and respect for the orders passed by this Court and she cannot imagine or think of non- compliance or disobedience of the order passed by this Court. According to her, there has not been any deliberate or intentional disobedience of the order dated 12.06.2008 passed by this Court. She has further averred that as soon as she had received a letter along with the interim order passed by this Court from the Commissioner on 13.06.2008, she had sought for clarification by sending a fax letter on the same day. Since there was no response from the Commissioner, she again wrote on 20.06.2008 to the Government Advocate of the A.G. Office, Bangalore, seeking clarification of the order. 9. In fact, she was seeking clarification of the order, because pursuant to the original order passed by the Commissioner on 05.06.2008, whereby she was appointed as Administrator of the temple, she had actually taken over the charge and possession of the temple on 07.06.2008. Thus, when the interim order came to be passed on 12.06.2008, she had already started working as an administrator of the temple and was discharging her duties as such. Thus obviously she was put in a fix as to how to comply with the order passed by this Court on 12.06.2008, which has been reproduced hereinabove. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case, she sought for clarification. 10. Unfortunately, no clarification was given either by the Commissioner or even by learned Government Advocate in this regard. No doubt it is true that she should have, in the facts and circumstances of the case, moved an appropriate application, in the pending Writ Petition, so as to get a clear order from this Court, but having failed to do so, cannot be construed as wilful or deliberate avoidance of the order passed by this Court. In the additional counter affidavit also, same thing has been reiterated by the accused that she has not violated the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition. She has referred to the endorsement made by the Commissioner. In the additional counter affidavit also, same thing has been reiterated by the accused that she has not violated the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition. She has referred to the endorsement made by the Commissioner. She has also mentioned therein that since she had already taken over charge of the temple and management, much before passing of the interim order, therefore she was not able to know as to how the said order dated 12.06.2008 whereby Annexure-"A" has been stayed, has to be complied with. 11. In the light of the aforesaid averments and the counter affidavits filed by the accused, we have heard learned Counsel for parties at length and perused the records. 12. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines the civil contempt, which reads as thus: "(b) "Civil contempt means" wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court". 13. Sections 11 and 12 deal with the power of the High Court to by offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction and punishment for contempt of Court. 14. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we have to ascertain whether there has been any wilful disobedience by the accused to the interim order passed by this Court on 12.06.2008 or not. 15. The event of dates as mentioned hereinabove would show that accused was appointed as an Administrator of the temple by order passed by Commissioner in this regard on 05.06.2008. She had thereafter taken over the charge and management of the temple on 07.06.2008. Evidence then she had been performing the duties of Administrator and working as such. The interim order came to be passed by learned Single Judge on 12.06.2008, which was communicated to her on 13.06.2008 by the Commissioner with the endorsement "please pursue. 16. In fact the Commissioner was also aware that pursuant to his own order passed on 05.06.2008 accused had already taken over the charge of the management of the temple on 07.06.2008. On coming to know of the interim order, he has not clarified as to what further steps are required to be taken by the accused. Accused therefore herself sought for clarification from the Commissioner, who did not clarify to the accused. On coming to know of the interim order, he has not clarified as to what further steps are required to be taken by the accused. Accused therefore herself sought for clarification from the Commissioner, who did not clarify to the accused. Not being satisfied with that, accused once again wrote to the Government Advocate in the A.G. Office, Bangalore, so as to clarify the order so that she could act accordingly, but nothing was heard from the A.G. Office as well. 17. From the conduct behaviour and attitude of the accused, it is clearly borne out from the record that she had taken all the steps so as to get the order clearly and then to act accordingly. The interim order did not say anywhere that in case-charge had been taken over by accused, then the same has to be handed over back to the Managing Committee. As mentioned hereinabove it only passed the order mentioning therein interim stay of Annexure-'A' vide which the accused was appointed as an administrator of the temple. 18. In view of the aforesaid' facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that we do not find that any case for drawing contempt proceedings have been made against the accused. 19. Learned Counsel for complainant has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in ILR 1992 Kar 838 (Sriramapura Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Shahar Banu). Even after critically examining the facts and the law involved in the said case, we are of the opinion that it has no application to the facts of the present case. Here admittedly the order dated 05.06.2008 passed by the Commissioner was implemented in letter and spirit on 07.06.2008 almost five days before the interim order came to be passed in the matter. For all these days, accused was discharging her duties as Administrator of the temple. 20. At the cost of repetition, we may once again reiterate that the interim order was also not clear in saying that in case the charge has been taken over by the Administrator, then the same shall be handed over back to the Managing Committee. For all these days, accused was discharging her duties as Administrator of the temple. 20. At the cost of repetition, we may once again reiterate that the interim order was also not clear in saying that in case the charge has been taken over by the Administrator, then the same shall be handed over back to the Managing Committee. In fact, this fact was very much known to the complainant and other petitioners of Writ Petition that charge had already been taken over by the accused as far back as on 07.06.2008, but still they did not think it proper to bring it to the notice of learned Single Judge on 12.06.2008, when their Writ Petition came up for bearing and for grant of interim order. In fact it was the duty of learned Counsel for complainant and other petitioners of Writ Petition, to have brought it to the notice of learned Single Judge that Annexure-"A" appended to the petition, which is the subject-matter of challenge in the Writ Petition, has already been given effect to. Thus interim order be passed accordingly, but no such arguments were advanced by learned Counsel for complainant before learned Single Judge. They were also duty-bound to bring all these facts to the notice of learned Single Judge, so that interim relief could be moulded accordingly. Not having done so, complainant himself is to be blamed for it. 21. As has been held by us that there has not been wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court by the accused, thus no contempt is said to have been made out. In this regard, we may profitably refer to Para 9 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 189 (Debebrata Bandopadhyay and others Vs. The State of West Bengal and Another), which reads as under. "A question whether there is contempt of Court or not is a serious one. The Court is both the accuse as well as the judge of the accusation. It behaves the Court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in Courts and Tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemner must be punished. It behaves the Court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in Courts and Tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemner must be punished. It must be realised that our system of Courts often result in delay of one kind or another. The remedy for it is reform and punishment departmentally. Punishment under the law of Contempt is called for when the lapse is, deliberate and• in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged." 22. Under these circumstances, according to us, there is no wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. Hence she deserves to be discharged and the rule nisi issued, should be discharged against her. 23. In the light of the aforesaid facts and features of the case, we are of the opinion that no case for framing of charges for alleged contempt has been made out. Contempt Petition is accordingly hereby dismissed. Rule nisi issued stands discharged.