ORDER Gohil, J. -- 1. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior has filed this contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, for disobedience of the order dated 11.5.2000 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.111/2000. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Chandan Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, Gwalior is a registered cooperative society and contemner is the President of the said society. The society applied for permission to construct eleven storied building having flats to be allotted to its members. A NOC was issued by the High Rise Committee on 15.9.1997. Permission for development was given by the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning on 23.9.1997. On 4.11.1997 permission for G+10 was granted by the Municipal Corporation. Thereafter a resolution No.1069 dated 16.1.1998 was passed and in the resolution it was decided that the construction of Silver State multi-storied building is contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, Town and Country Planning Act and the Land Development Rules, therefore, the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation was directed to stop the construction, thereafter, it was also resolved that the departmental Housing and Environment and Public Works Committee shall enquire and submit its report within seven days. On 5.5.1998 a letter was issued to the contemner to stop the construction work as building permission was suspended. On 5.5.1998 a letter was issued to the contemner to stop the construction work as building permission was suspended. Thereafter said society filed Writ Petition No.761/1998 and on 26.6.1998 interim order was passed that "the operation of the impugned order dated 5.5.1998 shall remain stayed subject to the following conditions: "(i) That, the petitioner shall not raise any construction beyond the height of 12 meters; (ii) That, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within a week with the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior; (iii) That, the petitioner shall strictly comply with the conditions indicated in the permission granted by the Nagarpalika Nigam, Gwalior dated 4.11.1997, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-27; and (iv) The petitioner shall file an affidavit in this Court within a week containing an undertaking that any construction raised hereinafter pursuant to the aforesaid permission dated 4.11.1997 shall be at the petitioner's own risk and in case this petition is dismissed those constructions shall be demolished." The aforesaid writ petition came up for hearing on 21.7.1999 and it was submitted that the State Government has passed the order dated 12.5.1999 thereby the resolution No. 1069 dated 16.4.1998 passed by the Corporation has been stayed and on the prayer of both the parties that the matter was to be decided by the State Government, the petition was disposed of with a direction that the State Government will decide the revision on its own merits, after hearing the petitioner and the Corporation. Thereafter, on 14.12.1999 and 17.12.1999 notices were issued to the society that he is raising construction without permission up to 12 mtrs. height. On 6.3.2000 State Government passed an order and cancelled the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation on 4.11.1997. Thereafter, on 14.12.1999 and 17.12.1999 notices were issued to the society that he is raising construction without permission up to 12 mtrs. height. On 6.3.2000 State Government passed an order and cancelled the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation on 4.11.1997. The operative part of the order is as under: ^^gkbZ jkbt desVh ,oa uxj fuxe Xokfy;j }kjk Hkwfe fodkl fu;e 1984 ds fu;e 83 ds izko/kkuksa dk Hkh i;kZIr /;ku ugha j[kk x;k ,oa vuqefr fu;eksa ds fo:) nh xbZ gSA vr,o e/; izns’k uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 dh /kkjk 299¼d½ esa iznÙk ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ‘kklu ,rn~ }kjk uxj fuxe Xokfy;j }kjk nh xbZ Hkou vuqKk Øekad 566 fnukad 4-11-1997 rRdky izHkko ls fujLr dh tkrh gS] rFkk uxj fuxe Xokfy;j dks ;g vkns’k fn, tkrs gSa fd 12 ehVj ls vf/kd Å¡pkbZ okys fuekZ.k dk;Z dks vke turk dh lqj{kk dh n`f”V ls rqjar rksM+k tk,A** 3. The society filed another Writ Petition No.512/2000 by challenging the order dated 6.3.2000 passed by the State Government. The aforesaid petition came up for hearing on 10.3.2000 and following order was passed: "In the meanwhile, the demolition pursuant to the impugned order passed by the State Government shall remain stayed only till the next date of listing subject to the following conditions: (i) No further construction shall be raised and the status quo as on today in respect of the building in question shall be maintained; (ii) No person shall be allowed to occupy the flats and no allotment of any flat shall be made; and (iii) The petitioner society shall file an affidavit by the next date of listing clearly indicating its financial status and further annexing therewith the copies of the relevant documents showing that it has the financial capacity to provide the necessary equipments complying with the norms and to remove the deficiencies pointed out by the State Government in the impugned order dated 6.3.2000." On 27.4.2000 the Writ Petition No.512/2000 was finally heard and disposed of with the following order: "18. In view of what has been indicated herein above this writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation setting forth its grievances in the matter relating to the cancellation of the permission and the demolition of the building in question before the respondent No.1 within ten days from today along with a certified copy of this order the respondent No.1 shall take a fresh decision in the matter in the light of the observations made herein above and pass appropriate orders. The application seeking grant of extension of the period of permission which is claimed to have been filed before the competent authority shall be transmitted to the State Government and shall be disposed of by it. It will be open to the petitioner to file a copy of the application seeking extension of period of permission along with its representation. The State Government shall pass a final order unaffected by any observations made in its earlier order dated 6.3.2000, within a period not later than six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before it. 19. In the meanwhile, during this interregnum the interim arrangement as envisaged under paragraph 8 subject to the conditions indicated in paragraphs 8(1) and 8(2) of the order of this Court dated 10.3.2000 shall continue to remain operative." The order dated 27.4.2000 passed in Writ Petition No512/2000 was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal No111/2000. In this letters patent appeal on 11.5.2000 Division Bench of this Court passed following interim directions: "7. Having given our consideration to the respective submissions of the parties and subject to the ultimate decision of the case, for the present till further orders we direct as under : (i) Demolition of the building is stayed. (ii) The appellant will complete five storeys of the building including the ground floor since the four storeys may not possibly be used unless the ground floor is completed. (iii) The appellant will complete civil and related works, fire fighting works, water works, work of lifts, electrical works for use over and above the five storeys at its own risk and costs and subject to the ultimate decision of the case. (iii) The appellant will complete civil and related works, fire fighting works, water works, work of lifts, electrical works for use over and above the five storeys at its own risk and costs and subject to the ultimate decision of the case. (iv) The appellant shall stick to the sanctioned plan for the construction of the building and the Fire Officer shall be at liberty to inspect the building from time to time to see that fire safety requirements are duly made." Thereafter, the aforesaid letters patent appeal was finally heard and dismissed by Division Bench on 18.12.2003 with the following order: "Building constructed by the appellant-society is known as 'Silver Estate'. Said building was not completed within two years from the date of sanction. Later on resolution was passed for not permitting such High Rising Building. In the said facts of the case, Single Bench has directed the appellant to submit a representation for decision of the State Government. Single Bench has granted concession to the appellant for approaching the State Government. However, no ground could be made out by the appellant for construction of such High Rise Building in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Since, Single Bench has issued directions, it will not be appropriate for us to interfere with the directions issued by the Single Bench directing the appellant to submit a representation. We, therefore, find no merits in this appeal." Against this order a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.24637/2003 was filed by the society before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which on 1.10.2004 following order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court : "In the facts and circumstances of the case, we extend the time granted by the learned Single Judge by further two weeks from today. It is needless to say that the representation shall be disposed of by the State Government on its own merits without being prejudiced by any observation made either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench of this High Court." Thereafter the matter was heard and decided by the State Government on 13.4.2005 and the State Government took the following decision: ^^vk;qDr uxj fuxe }kjk izfrosfnr mi;qZDr dafMdk 2 dh midafMd ¼3½ ,oa ¼4½ esa mYysf[kr Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa vfXu lqj{kk laca/kh O;oFkk,a lfefr }kjk dh tkuk vko’;d gSA Qk;j vkfQlj] uxjikfyd fuxe] Hkksiky }kjk fofHkUu pj.kksa esa fd, x, fujh{k.kksa rFkk fnukad 15-11-2003 dks fd, x, 40osa fujh{k.k vuqlkj fofHkUu fcanqvksa ij fu/kkZfjr ekudksa ds vuq:i Hkou esa vko’;d O;oLFkk,a lqfuf’pr djus dk nkf;Ro vkosnd lfefr dk gSA Hkou fuekZ.k rFkk vfXu lqj{kk laca/kh mDr of.kZr O;oLFkk,a lqfuf’pr u fd, tkus ds n`f”Vxr fuxe ifj”kn~ }kjk fnukad 16-4-1998 dks fy;k x;k fu.kZ; tufgr esa gksus ls fuxe vk;qDr }kjk mDr fu.kZ; ds vuqØe esa tkjh fd, x, funsZ’kksa esa dksbZ oS/kkfud =qfV izrhr ugha gksrhA rFkkfi] pw¡fd mDr izfØ;k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds varfje vkns’k ds vuqikyu ds iz’uk/khu flYoj ,LVsV gkb&jkbt bekjr dk laiw.kZ fuekZ.k dk;Z vkosnd lfefr }kjk iw.kZ dj fy;k x;k gS rFkk lfefr us le{k esa lquokbZ ds nkSjku uxjikfyd fuxe] Xokfy;j }kjk Hkou fuekZ.k ds laca/k esa izfrosfnr =qfV;ksa dks Bhd djus dk vk’oklu fn;k gS] vr,o laiw.kZ izdj.k ij fopkjksijkar jkT; ‘kklu }kjk fuEukuqlkj vkns’k ikfjr fd, tkrs gSa vkSj vkosnd lfefr ls vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd bl vkns’k ds ikfjr fd, tkus ds 3 ekg dh vof/k esa muds }kjk fufeZr flYoj ,LVsV gkb&jkbt bekjr esa fuekZ.k laca/kh mfYyf[kr =qfV;ksa dks Bhd dj vk;qDr] uxj fuxe Xokfy;j rFkk Qk;j vkfQlj uxjikfyd fuxe] Xokfy;j dks LFkku dk la;qDr :i ls fujh{k.k djk,aA** 4. Thereafter nothing happened in the matter and on 25.9.2001 Municipal Corporation filed this contempt petition for violating the order dated 11.5.2000 passed by Division Bench in LPA No.111/2000. It was submitted that the order dated 11.5.2000 was passed after hearing the counsel for the appellant, i.e., Chandan Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited as well as the counsel for the State Government and Municipal Corporation. It was submitted that the order dated 11.5.2000 was passed after hearing the counsel for the appellant, i.e., Chandan Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited as well as the counsel for the State Government and Municipal Corporation. It was contended on behalf of the Municipal Corporation that the Corporation stopped the demolition of the building as per the directions of the High Court, but the contemner started construction over the plot in contravention of the directions given by the High Court. This fact is clear from the inspection reports. The inspection was made by the competent authority from time to time after due notice and in presence of the contemner or his representative and found that the respondent was disobeying the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. Copies of the inspection reports dated 4.6.2000, 25.7.2000, 11.8.2000, 23.9.2000, 30.10.2000, 20.11.2000, 16.12.2000 and 31.1.2001 have been filed on record and they have been marked cumulatively as Annexure A-III. A public notice dated 22.11.2000 to the effect that till the completion certificate is issued by the applicant, the inhabitants of Gwalior city are advised not to purchase or live in the building being constructed by the respondent, was published in daily newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar" dated 25.11.2000. Thereafter, a notice was served on 20.3.2001 to the respondent that the respondent is violating the order of the High Court. It is submitted that after receiving the notice the respondent did not care to obey the directions of the High Court and was continuously disobeying the order of the High Court and was involved in raising construction contrary to the directions of the High Court. He has also not obtained completion certificate from the applicant-Corporation and sold the flats. It was submitted that as per the directions of Division Bench of this Court on 11.5.2000 in LPA No.111/2000, the respondent has violated all the directions of the High Court deliberately, intentionally and wilfully and completed the construction work and without obtaining completion certificate allotted or sold the flats to several persons. It is contended on behalf of the corporation that when the authorities of the applicant- Corporation approached the respondent to stop the work, the respondent openly said that he does not care for the orders of the Court, much less of the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court and deliberately, intentionally and wilfully disobeyed the directions of the High Court, which amounts to contempt of Court. It was submitted that in spite of all these efforts of the applicant the respondent has flouted the directions of the High Court dated 11.5.2000, which is punishable under Contempt of Court Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 5. In reply, the contemner raised preliminary submissions and submitted that the respondent has not committed any contempt of the order of the High Court and tendered unconditional apology for the contempt if any committed by him. It was submitted that on 11.5.2000 demolition of the building was stayed subject to the operative part of the order contained in para 7 and consequent thereto the respondent-society continued the construction work and completed the building and the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In reply, learned counsel for the contemner placed reliance on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP on 1.10.2004 as quoted supra; he submitted that consequent to the direction's issued by the Hon'ble apex Court the respondent-society represented before the State Government and after hearing, the State Government was pleased to pass final order on 13.4.2005. His submission was that as per the direction issued by the Municipal Corporation on 18.7.2005 a sum of Rs.l,06,417/- was deposited for connecting the sewage system of the building with the main sewage system. He submitted that he has not committed any contempt and contempt petition be dismissed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that uptil now neither the High Rise Committee nor the Corporation nor State Government has granted any permission to the respondent-society for constructing high rise building of G+10. By resolution No.1069 dated 16.4.1998 the building permission was stayed and construction was stopped and thereafter vide letter dated 5.5.1998 the building permission was suspended. In Writ Petition No.761/1998 on 26.6.1998 operation of the order dated 5.5.1998 was stayed and condition was imposed that the petitioner shall not raise any construction beyond the height of 12 mtrs.; the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.l.00 lac with the Corporation; the petitioner shall strictly comply with the conditions indicated in the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior dated 4.11.1997. He shall also file an undertaking on affidavit that any construction raised hereinafter pursuant to the aforesaid permission dated 4.11.1997 shall be at the petitioner's own risk and in case the petition is dismissed, the construction shall be demolished and in default of compliance of any of the conditions indicated herein above this interim order shall stand automatically vacated. 7. In LPA No.111/2000 by interim order dated 11.5.2000 the Division Bench has stayed the demolition of the building and permitted to complete only five storeys of the building including the ground floor. The respondent was also permitted to complete civil and related works, fire-fighting over and above five storeys at his own risk and costs and subject to ultimate decision of the case. The another condition was that the respondent shall stick to the sanctioned plan for the construction of the building and the fire officer shall be at liberty to inspect the building from time to time to see that fire safety requirements are duly made. From this order, it is clear that the permission was granted to complete the construction work up to five storeys the ground floor and completion of civil and related works, fire fighting works, water works, electrical works over and above the fire storeys was permitted at his own risk and costs and subject to ultimate decision of the case and further direction was given that the respondent shall stick to the sanctioned plan for construction of the building. From this order it is also clear that there was no sanction for construction of building above five storeys and permission granted by the Municipal Corporation dated 4.8.1997 was cancelled by the State Government on 6.8.2000 and it is not disputed that the aforesaid LPA No.111/2000 was finally heard and dismissed by Division Bench on 18.12.2003, which means that the interim order dated 11.5.2000 was merged in the final order dated 18.12.2003 and the order dated 27.4.2000 passed in Writ Petition No.512/2000 was upheld. As per this order dated 27.4.2000 writ petition was finally disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation setting forth the grievance in the matter relating to cancellation of permission and demolition of building in question before the respondent No.1, i.e., the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Administration Development, State of Madhya Pradesh, within 10 days and the respondent No.1 State shall take a fresh decision in the matter in the light of the observations herein above and pass appropriate orders. The direction was given to the State Government to decide the representation and to pass a final order within six weeks and in the meantime conditions No.8(i) and 8(ii) of interim order dated 10.3.2000 passed in Writ Petition No.512/2000 were directed to be remained in operation. The condition No.8(i) was that no further construction shall be raised and the status quo only in respect of the building in question shall be maintained and condition No.8(ii) was that no person shall be allowed to occupy the flat and no allotment of flats shall be made. On 13.4.2005 State Government found that the decision of Nigam Parishad dated 16.4.1998 was in the public interest and the directions issued by Commissioner pursuant to the aforesaid decision were also found to be perfectly legal and justified but the State Government considered this aspect of the matter that the contemner has completed the construction of Silver Estate high rise building under interim direction of the Court, but as we have mentioned, there were no interim directions. On 10.3.2000 only order of status quo was passed, which was about demolition of the construction and it was specifically mentioned that no further construction shall be raised. Therefore, if any construction was raised, that was not under the direction of the Court and it appears that the State Government was misled whereas the ground situation was that no permission was ever granted by the High Court for raising further construction. On the contrary there was specific direction by the High Court that no construction shall be raised, therefore, if any construction is raised, that cannot be held to be legal. From this order dated 13.4.2005 it appears that the officers of the State Government have not cared to see the orders of the High Court passed from time to time and deliberately ignored the effect of the same. From this order dated 13.4.2005 it appears that the officers of the State Government have not cared to see the orders of the High Court passed from time to time and deliberately ignored the effect of the same. More• so, State Government has also tried to save the contemner and extended undue favour to him under the wrong notion and directed that the deficiencies be removed. It was also argued that during the period of three months the deficiencies as pointed out have not been removed nor uptil now the completion certificate has been granted to the contemner by the Municipal Corporation. 8. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the respondent is not having any valid and legal permission for construction of high-rise Ground+ 10 storied building and the State Government has also not set aside the order of cancellation of permission nor has granted any specific permission. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent -contemner has deliberately flouted the orders and directions issued by the Court and has clearly committed contempt. Despite the orders passed by the Division Bench on 11.5.2000 he has constructed G+ 10 storied building, which was not permitted. Despite the direction that 'he will not allot the flats, the respondent has also allotted and sold more than hundred flats to the innocent citizens. It is clear that he is not having any permission of High Rise Committee for raising such a construction of G+ 10 storeys. The Corporation has not issued any completion certificate nor the Corporation is satisfied about the quality of construction of such a high-rise building. The Fire Officer of the Municipal Corporation is also not satisfied with fire-fighting instruments. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent has obtained order from the State Government showing that he has raised construction under the orders of the High Court, which is also not true. The Court has never granted any such permission and if any permission is there in the order dated 11.5.2000 over five storeys, that is at the risk of the respondent and the order dated 11.5.2000 is also merged in the subsequent final order dated 18.12.2003. The Court has never granted any such permission and if any permission is there in the order dated 11.5.2000 over five storeys, that is at the risk of the respondent and the order dated 11.5.2000 is also merged in the subsequent final order dated 18.12.2003. By deliberately violating the order the respondent has put the life of hundreds of families in danger by not only flouting the orders thinking that he is above the law and he is not required to follow the law and the rules applicable for construction of such a high rise building. According to us, when there is no valid permission, the construction is illegal and liable to be demolished. The contemner is held guilty of contempt of Court and he is liable to be punished, in such case illegal construction is also liable to be demolished. If we direct for the demolition of the building, the life of the persons those who are residing therein and who have purchased the flats will be in difficulty, they may be innocent person. However, it cannot be held that they are innocent because before purchasing the flats they must have enquired and ensured that the respondent has raised the construction after obtaining due and valid permission as required under the law but according to us, it will not be proper to direct for the demolition of the building because the occupants are certainly entitled for notice and hearing and it will create a big human problem, but from the aforesaid facts it is clear that the respondent has deliberately, intentionally and mischievously flouted the orders of the Court and raised illegal construction and put the lives of hundreds of families into trouble. Therefore, he is liable to be punished severally. The apology tendered by the contemner cannot be said to be bona fide as he attempted to justify his action and vehemently argued the case before the Court. Where the contemner deliberately and intentionally flouted the orders and mischievously raised illegal construction, in such cases the apology cannot be accepted, therefore, we reject the same. 9. As held above, this petition has been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, under which the High Court being Court of Record is having wide power to punish for contempt and to award punishment of any length and to impose fine of any amount. In case of Mohd. 9. As held above, this petition has been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, under which the High Court being Court of Record is having wide power to punish for contempt and to award punishment of any length and to impose fine of any amount. In case of Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. The State of U.P and others, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1625 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "the High Courts' powers for punishment of contempt have been preserved by the Constitution and they are also inherent in a Court of Record". 10. In the case of S.K. Sarkar Member, Board of Revenue, U.P Lucknow v. Vinay Chandra Mishra, reported in AIR 1981 SC 723 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "Articles 129 and 215 preserve all the powers of the Supreme Court and the High Court, respectively, as a Court of Record which include the power to punish the contempt of itself. There are no curbs on the power of the High Court to punish the contempt of itself except those contained in the Contempt of Courts Act. Articles 129 and 215 do not define as to what constitutes contempt of Court. Parliament has, by virtue of the Entries 77 and 14 in list, and list III respectively of the seventh schedule, power to define and limit the powers of the Courts in punishing contempt of Court and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto. Indeed, this is what is stated in the preamble of the Act of 1971." 11. In the case of Paritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar, reported in 1992 JLJ 253 = AIR 1992 SC 904 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "The power of the Supreme Court and the High Court being the Courts of Record as embodied under Articles 129 and 215 respectively cannot be restricted and trammeled by any ordinary legislation including the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Their inherent power is elastic, unfettered and not subjected to any limit. Their inherent power is elastic, unfettered and not subjected to any limit. The power conferred upon the Supreme Court and the High Court, being Courts of Record under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution respectively is an inherent power and the jurisdiction vested is a special one not derived from any other statute but derived only from Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India and therefore the Constitutionally vested right cannot be either abridged by any legislation or abrogated or cut down. Nor can they be controlled or limited by any statute or by any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any Rules." 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, when the contemner has deliberately flouted the orders of the Court and has mischievously managed the affairs with the State Government, the officers of the State Government are also liable to be punished. The Government is free to take action against such officers. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold the contemner guilty of contempt of this Court and punish him exercising the powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, with imprisonment of six months and instead directing for demolition of the building, which is the consequential effect, we impose amount of fine of Rs.50.00 lacs (Rupees Fifty lacs), which will meet the ends of justice. 13. It is made clear that we have repeatedly given our anxious consideration to the amount of fine, which may not be treated as exorbitant but looking to the magnitude of the wrong committed by the contemner, showing disregard to the orders of the High Court and throwing them into winds, we are of the view that when we have not directed for demolition of the illegal construction only on humanitarian ground, the heavy amount of fine imposed on the contemner as stated supra would meet the ends of justice. Let a message should go to the society that nobody is above the law whether they are builders, contractors or officers of the housing society. Laws of the State are binding on them. We are also conscious of this fact that by raising illegal construction of G+ 10 storied building with hundreds of flats he must have earned crores of rupees by selling those flats. Laws of the State are binding on them. We are also conscious of this fact that by raising illegal construction of G+ 10 storied building with hundreds of flats he must have earned crores of rupees by selling those flats. We can take notice of this fact that during these years cost of land and flats have considerably gone up and flats are very costly. When there is no valid permission for construction, the Corporation could not also exercise proper control and could not verify the quality and nature of construction whether the same is according to the plans and approved map, therefore, in such a situation, it can also be held that the Corporation itself has allowed the contemner to be escaped from paying proper fees and other charges, for which the Corporation was entitled. Therefore, we further direct that the Corporation shall be entitled to recover all charges, fees and penalty from the respondent as well as from the flat owners. The occupants and purchasers of the flats shall also have liberty to prosecute the respondent, members of the society and other officers those who have sold the flats to them illegally by cheating. The respondent is also liable to pay exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) to the Corporation. 14. Accordingly, this contempt petition is allowed in the manner as indicated above. We authorise and direct the Registrar to issue warrant of arrest against the contemner and to take necessary steps with a view to execute the order of imprisonment as well as recovery of fine.