JUDGMENT :- The above contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for willfully disobeying the order, passed by this Court, on 29. 2004, in O.A.No.373 of 2004 in C.S.No.370 of 2004. 2. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner Company that a Civil Suit in C.S.No.370 of 2004, had been filed before this Court seeking for the relief of declaration that the notice, dated 14. 2004, issued by the defendant therein as null and void and for a consequential order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking any action pursuant to the notice, including taking possession of the mortgaged assets, namely, the three wind mills located at Survey Nos.988/1, 989/1,3, & 4 and 999 measuring 11.37 acres in Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, under the provisions of The State Financial Corporation Act. 3. An application in O.A.No.373 of 2004, had also been filed seeking for an order of interim injunction restraining the defendant therein and the first respondent in the present petition from taking any action pursuant to the notice, dated 14. 2004. When the said application was taken up for hearing, on 24. 2004, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had taken notice and he had represented before this Court, on 33. 2004, that a sum of Rs.1,21,43,145/-was due towards the principal and Rs.1,43,65,061/- was due as the interest thereon and that the defendant in the suit had already taken possession of the property as an interim measure. Therefore, this Court was pleased to record the undertaking of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-would be paid, on or before 24. 2004, and another sum of Rs.15,00,000/- would be paid, on or before 6. 2004, directly to the defendant in the suit. A direction was also issued to the defendant to keep the property in as is where is condition, without dismantling its structure standing on the property in question, until further orders. 4. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-was remitted and a memo was filed in the proceedings. On 29. A direction was also issued to the defendant to keep the property in as is where is condition, without dismantling its structure standing on the property in question, until further orders. 4. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-was remitted and a memo was filed in the proceedings. On 29. 2004, this Court had disposed of the application recording the statements of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner may be permitted to deposit a sum of Rs.36,99,912/-, by monthly installments of Rs.3,00,000/-, completing the payment of the entire dues, within 12 months from the date of the said order. Thus, the interim order passed by this Court in the application in O.A.No.373 of 2004, was made absolute and the said application was closed. 5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner had made payment of the amounts without any default. A sum of Rs.30,00,000/-has been remitted, apart from the other amounts remitted, as per the order passed by this Court. While so, the respondents had brought the property in question for sale by auction by inviting tenders by an advertisement of the tender notification, fixing the date for receipt of offers as 3. 2005. Thus, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present contempt petition alleging that the respondents had committed contempt of Court by willfully disobeying the orders passed by this Court, on 29. 2004. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that the second respondent had no intention of committing contempt of Court by willfully disobeying the order passed by this Court, on 29. 2004. However, if this Court finds that, for some reason, the second respondent had committed contempt of Court, by her act or omission, her unconditional apology, for having done so, may be accepted. 7. It is further submitted that during the hearing of O.A.No.373 of 2004, the counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had taken notice and brought to the notice of this Court that, as on 33. 2004, a sum of Rs.1,24,31,450/- is due towards the principal and sum of Rs.1,43,65,061/-is due towards the interest. The total amount due from the petitioner as principal and as interest is Rs.2,67,96,511/-. This Court had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, on or before 24. 2004, a sum of Rs.1,24,31,450/- is due towards the principal and sum of Rs.1,43,65,061/-is due towards the interest. The total amount due from the petitioner as principal and as interest is Rs.2,67,96,511/-. This Court had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, on or before 24. 2005, and another sum of Rs.15,00,000/-to be paid, on or before 6. 2004. The second defendant, who had already taken possession of the property, was directed to keep the same in as is where is condition, without dismantling any of the structures standing on the property, until further orders are passed by this Court. It was further directed that the plaintiff in the suit could make a proposal to the respondent, on or before 5. 2004, for an one time settlement by rescheduling the amounts due from the plaintiff. However, the petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit C.S.No.370 of 2004, had paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and had also applied for an one time settlement, belatedly. Since the proposal for settlement made by the petitioner was not within the prescribed norms of the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, the proposal had been rejected. 8. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.5334 of 2003, on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai. An interim order had been granted in favour of the petitioner on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, within the specified period of four weeks. However, the petition seeking the interim order had been dismissed, since the petitioner had not complied with the condition prescribed by the Court. 9. It has been further stated that after the rejection of the proposal for an one time settlement, the petitioner had released an advertisement, on 12. 2005, for the sale of the assets. Even though the respondent had desisted from dismantling the structure as directed by this Court, by its order, dated 24. 2004, the petitioner had started dismantling the assets and had stealthily removed some of the assets that were under the custody of the respondent. Therefore, a criminal complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioner in the local police station at Kinathukadavu, vide FIR No.291/2004, dated 16. 2004. Since the order of this Court, dated 24. 2004, had only directed the respondent from dismantling the structures, an advertisement was made, on 12. Therefore, a criminal complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioner in the local police station at Kinathukadavu, vide FIR No.291/2004, dated 16. 2004. Since the order of this Court, dated 24. 2004, had only directed the respondent from dismantling the structures, an advertisement was made, on 12. 2005, for the sale of the assets to recover the outstanding amounts due from the petitioner. This was with the bonafide plea that the order passed by this Court was only with regard to dismantling the structures and that there was no order with regard to the sale of the assets. However, on ascertaining the fact that a subsequent order had been passed by this Court the respondent did not proceed further with the auction and it was subsequently cancelled, without any prejudice being caused to the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in L.D. Jaikwal Vs. State Of U.P. ( (1984) 3 SCC 405 ), to state that a mere apology could not absolve the petitioner from the charge of having committed contempt of Court. The learned counsel had quoted the following paragraph of the said decision in support of his contentions: "We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the "slap-say sorry-and forget" school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying sorry does not make the slapper poorer. Nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered through the very lips which not long ago slandered a judicial officer without the slightest compunction". 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (102) Vs. Ashok Khot ( (2006) 5 SCC 1 ), wherein it was held as follows: 5. Disobedience of this Courts order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State. Disobedience of this Courts order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. That is why it is imperative and invariable that Courts orders are to be followed and complied with. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Director Of Education, Uttaranchal Vs. Ved Prakash Joshi ( (2005) 6 Scc 98 ). Paragraph 7 of the said decision reads as follows: "While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. A similar view was taken in K.G. Derasari Vs. Union of India. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the party concerned to approach the higher court if according to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the higher court. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, noncompliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional directions or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. In that view of the matter, the order of the High Court is set aside." 13. Relying on the said decision, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that a Court hearing a contempt petition is not empowered to test the correctness or otherwise of an order passed earlier based on which the issue of contempt of Court had arisen. It was also not open to the Court hearing the contempt petition to traverse beyond the order. The Court can only be concerned with the fact as to whether the decision in question had been complied with or not. 14. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and in view of the records available before this Court, it is clear that even though the respondents had initiated some steps to bring the assets in question for sale by auction, by an advertisement, dated 12. 2005, the respondents had cancelled the auction after it was brought to their notice that this Court had passed further orders, on 29. 2004, making the interim order, dated 24. 2004, absolute. Thus, it is clear that the respondents had not done anything in willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court, to initiate contempt proceedings against them. Hence, the contempt petition stands closed. Consequently, connected Sub Application No.298 of 2005 is also closed. No costs.