ORDER 1. Ten petitions bearing Transfer Petitions Nos. 435-44 of 2008 were filed before this Court for transfer of various writ petitions pending before the Allahabad High Court to this Court in which notices were issued and further proceedings in the writ petitions pending before the High Court were stayed. 2. Out of the aforesaid transfer petitions, in Transfer Petitions Nos. 438 and 440 of 2008, interlocutory applications were filed in the month of July 2009, on behalf of Respondent Mithilesh Kumar Singh, which were registered as IAs Nos. 65-66 of 2009, wherein prayer was made, inter alia, for restraining the State of Uttar Pradesh from raising construction of memorials, statues, smaraks, parks, sthals and statues of election symbol (elephants) and the like on the government land by spending public money. Those two applications were placed before us in the Mentioning Board on 1-9-2009, on which date, it was ordered to place the same in the Mentioning Board on 8-9-2009, to enable the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent 1 to file further affidavit. 3. On 8-9-2009, the two applications were taken up at 1.30 p.m., Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent concluded his arguments whereafter Mr S.C. Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh was on his legs, when the Court had to rise for the day. After hearing the matter for over two hours, we were inclined to pass some interim orders till the matter was next taken up on 29-9-2009. At that time, however, Mr S.C. Misra gave an undertaking that no further constructions will be carried on at the project sites covered by different writ petitions pending in the Allahabad High Court. In view of the clear and definite undertaking given on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, there was no need for the Court to pass any formal interim order. 4. However, from the reports appearing in the print media (The Times of India, New Delhi, Thursday, 10-9-2009 and The Hindu, City Edition, Delhi, Friday, 11-9-2009) and the electronic media (NDTV 24x7; programme a telecast in the evening of 10-9-2009), it transpired that, despite the undertaking, there was no let up and the work was progressing in full swing on the project sites in question. In view of the disquieting reports appearing in the media, we decided to take up the matter on 11-9-2009, when this Bench was to assemble, as per the constitution of that day, in connection with' some other case. The learned counsel for the parties were, accordingly, b informed and asked to be present in Court in connection with this case. Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Solicitor General for India, was also requested to be present to assist the Court as amicus curiae. 5. On that day, the matter was taken up at 12.45 p.m. and the Court recorded the following order the relevant part of which reads thus: (SCC pp. 362-63, paras 4-13) "4. Mr S.C. Misra, learned Senior Counsel is not present today. The State of Uttar Pradesh is represented by Mr Shail Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Advocate General, and Mr Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel. 5. Mr Harish N. Salve, learned counsel, submitted that he has not been fully briefed in the matter and was not fully aware of the developments taking place after 8-9-2009. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned counsel, stated that the reports appearing in the media were true and constructions were going on at the project sites in complete violation of the undertaking given to this Court. He also produced before the Court a bunch of photographs showing construction work going on at the project sites in question• with the help of earth-movers and other heavy machinery allegedly after 8-9-2009. 6. The media reports, as already noted, disclose that construction work is going on in full swing at the different construction sites in question in violation of the undertaking given to this Court. We may note that there is a denial on behalf of the State Government that any construction is in progress and The Hindu has been fair enough to publish the denial by the spokesperson of the Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam. In the news report, it is further stated that the spokesperson on behalf of the State Government admitted that only maintenance work was being carried out. In the news report, it is further stated that the spokesperson on behalf of the State Government admitted that only maintenance work was being carried out. But the news report in The Hindu also carries a photograph and, unless it is of an earlier date, the photograph tells a different story and makes it clear that the construction activities are very much going on at the Kanshi Ram Sanskritik Sthal and other places in Lucknow as mentioned in the report, which are covered by the undertaking given to this Court. 7. Having regard to the way this matter has proceeded, we are unable to ignore or dismiss the media reports; more so, as the record of the State of Uttar Pradesh in adhering to its undertakings given to the Court in the past has not been exemplary. 8. In view of the aforesaid developments, we direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh to file a show cause stating in unambiguous terms the nature of work, if any, that was allowed to be carried on at the projects in question after 8-9-2009. 9. The Times of India, Delhi, The Hindu, Delhi, and NDTV 24x7 are directed to submit before the Court all materials in their possession along with affidavits in support of their reports that construction work was carried on at the project sites in question after 8-9-2009. 10. It is further directed that all activities of all manner and kinds, whether construction, repair or maintenance, shall stop forthwith at all the construction sites covered by the previous order of this Court and all the construction sites shall be vacated of the entire workforce, excepting the watch and ward staff within six hours from now i.e. by 7.00 p.m. 11. The show cause, as directed above, and the materials from the media should be filed before this Court by 17-9-2009. 12. Let this matter be placed on 18-9-2009, immediately after the Board of Court No. 3 is over. Let copies of the two newspaper reports, referred to above, be taken on record. 13. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the offices of the Times of India, The Hindu and NDTV 24x7 by fax as well for compliance with the direction given to them." 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, filed an affidavit. 13. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the offices of the Times of India, The Hindu and NDTV 24x7 by fax as well for compliance with the direction given to them." 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, filed an affidavit. The Hindu, The Times of India and NDTV 24x7 too filed their respective affidavits. On 18-9-2009, time till 29-9-2009 was allowed to Respondent The Hindu, The Times of India and NDTV 24x7 to file their responses to the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh. The State of Uttar Pradesh was also permitted to file its response to the affidavits filed by the two newspapers and the TV channel within the same time. Rejoinder to their responses, if any, was directed to be filed by 3-10-2009 and we directed the matter to be placed on 5-10-2009. We also directed that further hearing of the interim matter would be taken up on 5-10- 2009, instead of 29-9-2009. 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, responses were filed. In the meantime, applications were filed on behalf of Respondent which were registered as IAs Nos. 68-69 of 2009. In these applications, it is alleged and stated that the State of Uttar Pradesh in flagrant defiance of the restraint order dated 11-9-2009, has not abated its construction activity and was continuing the same even after the passing of the restraint order by this Court. On the basis of the aforesaid statement; prayer is made for directing the Secretary (Home), Union of India, to deploy paramilitary force, like Central Reserve Police Force ("CRPF", for short) or Central Industrial Security Force ("CISF', for short) or the like at the disputed sites of construction. 8. On 5-10-2009, first the matter as to whether there was any violation of the undertaking given on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh before this Court on 8-9-2009, and the restraint order passed by this Court on 11-9-2009, was taken up for consideration. Dr. A.M. Singhvi concluded his arguments in the said matter and when Mr Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh was on his legs, the Court rose for the day and the case was directed to be placed today. Today, arguments on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh were concluded. 9. Dr. A.M. Singhvi concluded his arguments in the said matter and when Mr Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh was on his legs, the Court rose for the day and the case was directed to be placed today. Today, arguments on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh were concluded. 9. Mr Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Advocate, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh plainly admitted that constructions were carried on at certain projects/sites after the undertaking was given to this Court on 8-9-2009, and even after the Court passed the restraint order on 11-9-20091. As a matter of fact, he accepted that constructions were taking place yesterday and might be going on even as of now. He, however, strenuously submitted that the projects/sites on which constructions were going on are not covered either by the undertaking given to the Court or the injunction granted by the Court on 11-9-2009. Mr Salve submitted that Respondent 1 was trying to create a confusion by representing that constructions took place after the undertaking and the order of injunction passed by the Court on projects/sites that were covered by the undertaking and the injunction. 10. We fail to see any scope for confusion. The restraint order passed by this Court on 11-9-20091 is in clear and unambiguous terms. It also cannot be lost sight of that the restraint order was passed when the Court had felt that the undertaking given to it three days earlier was not being adhered to. In these circumstances, we, prima facie, see no scope for any confusion. Even assuming that there was any confusion in the minds of the authorities concerned of the State Government, the only course open to them was to approach the Court and seek clarifications. We are, therefore, prima facie, of the view that it is a case where the order of this Court was consciously flouted by resorting to devious afterthought. The admitted fact is that, notwithstanding the injunction order and the earlier undertaking, constructions have been going on at certain sites and projects. To our mind, this fact alone justifies this Court to proceed further with a view to go to the heart of the matter. 11. The admitted fact is that, notwithstanding the injunction order and the earlier undertaking, constructions have been going on at certain sites and projects. To our mind, this fact alone justifies this Court to proceed further with a view to go to the heart of the matter. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the affidavits filed on behalf of the Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, The Hindu, The Times of India and NDTV 24x7, rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of Respondent 1 and The Hindu to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief Secretary, reply thereto filed by the Chief Secretary and having given our anxious consideration to the entire matter, we have no option but to hold that a strong prima facie case is made out for initiating a contempt proceeding against the Chief Secretary. We, accordingly, proceed to do so. 12. Issue notice to the Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against and punished for deliberate and conscious violation of the undertaking given to this Court on 8-9-2009, and the restraint order passed by this Court on 11-9-2009. The Registry is directed to register a contempt petition on the basis of this order and thereupon issue notice in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 (for short "the Rules"). 13. In terms of Rule 10 of the Rules, Mr Gopal Subramaniam, learned Solicitor General for India, who is present in Court, is requested to appear and assist this Court. 14. Place the contempt matter on 4-11-2009, on which date, the alleged contemnor is directed to remain present in court in person. IAs Nos. 65-66 15. Further hearing in the interim matter resumed and heard Mr S.c.Misra and Mr Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that it is a fit case for making the interim matter passed on 11-9-2009 absolute. Accordingly, we make the aforesaid order absolute. Court Masters