JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The Petitioner seeks an appropriate action under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (hereafter also referred to as the Contempt Act) alleging willful and deliberate disregard, disobedience and violations of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008 passed by this Court in WP (C) 5491 of 2001 and the batch of petitions accompanying it. 2. We have heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. S. Jahan, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Goswami, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Saikia, and Mr. A. Choudhury, Advocates for the Respondents. 3. A brief sketch of the pleaded versions is indispensable. The Petitioner herein had approached this Court with WP (C) 5491 of 2001 inter alia challenging the vires of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972 (as amended) (hereafter for short referred to as the Act). This petition was heard along with others in a group and was disposed of accordingly by the aforementioned judgment and order. 4. The Petitioner is an association of Roller flour Mills situated in the North Eastern region of the country and is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Being principally aggrieved by the levy of cess on wheat by the Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereafter referred to as the Board) and the Market Committees the above challenge was laid. It contended amongst others that the wheat purchased by its members from outside the State of Assam was being subjected to such cess even before the same was manufactured into wheat products and sold in the market areas in the State of Assam. The Petitioner has averred that though by the above decision the vires of the Act was upheld, it was directed that realisation of cess would have to be obligatorily in scrupulous compliance of the necessary preconditions embodied in Section 21 thereof and Rules 22 and 23 of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules, 1975 (hereafter referred to as the Rules). Referring to para 94, 95 and 96 of the judgment, it has been asserted that levy of cess was thereby prohibited on production of sample documents by the traders demonstrating that goods intercepted at the check gates were on transit after completion of sale thereof outside the State of Assam. Referring to para 94, 95 and 96 of the judgment, it has been asserted that levy of cess was thereby prohibited on production of sample documents by the traders demonstrating that goods intercepted at the check gates were on transit after completion of sale thereof outside the State of Assam. Realisation of the impost by the Board was also made subject to the necessity thereof as well as the approval of the State Government as required under the Act. 5. The Petitioner has maintained that after the pronouncement of the said verdict, it by letter dated 16.9.2008 informed the Chairman of the Board about the same underlining that as its members purchase agricultural produce from outside the State of Assam and import the same by road or rail they are not liable to pay cess in the light of the determination so made by this Court. Inspite of the receipt of the said letter, according to the Petitioner, there was no response thereto. To the contrary, the Chairman of the Board made a press statement on 6.10.2008 encouraging the officers thereof to continue to levy and collect cess as they had been doing before the judgment and order. The Petitioner has iterated that by letter dated 23.9.2008, it also apprised the Chief Executive Officer of the Board about the decision and the implication thereof. The said authority, however, by his letter dated 30.9.2008 rejected the Petitioner's plea of impermissibility of levy of cess as construed by it. The Petitioner's representation dated 1.10.2008 to the same effect endeavouring to explain the legal position as elucidated by this Court in its judgment also stood rejected by the said authority. In this premise, the Petitioner association by its letter dated 4.10.2008 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the Board emphasised that the actions of the Marketing Committees in continuing to levy and collect cess were in apparent violation of the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008. This letter, however, remained unresponded. 6. The Petitioner has cited individual instances with related facts to establish the charge of willful and conscious violations of the directives of this Court as contained in the impugned judgment and order. We propose to dilate in details in this regard a little later. 7. This letter, however, remained unresponded. 6. The Petitioner has cited individual instances with related facts to establish the charge of willful and conscious violations of the directives of this Court as contained in the impugned judgment and order. We propose to dilate in details in this regard a little later. 7. On the basis of such perceived transgressions, the Petitioner has pleaded that though its members purchase agricultural goods outside the State of Assam, namely Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and import the same into the State of Assam by trucks or rail, the Respondents are levying and collecting the market fee at the check gates and railway stations in total disregard of the aforementioned judgment and order of this Court. While contending that though the goods purchased by its members are ascertained goods and in a deliverable state, the concerned Marketing Inspectors out rightly refuse to consider the documents produced by them in testament to the completion of transaction of sale and purchase of their commodities at different places outside the State of Assam. The Petitioner has alleged that on the objection raised to the illegal demand for cess, the drivers of the trucks are forcefully confined in the office at the check gates and are thereafter forced to drive the vehicles to undisclosed locations and the agricultural produce is seized by the officers. The Petitioner has imputed forcible levy of cess on the agricultural produce at the check gates and railway stations with the full knowledge that the same is not realisable in view of the judgment and order of this Court. 8. According to it, the Respondent No. 2 had been transferred from its office of the Chairman of the Board on 23.7.2008 to be substituted by the Respondent No. 3. It has designated the Respondents 5, 6 and 7 as Assistant Secretary, Gauhati Sub-Divisional Market Committee, Srirampur Marketing Check Gate, Srirampur, and Marketing Inspector, Gauhati Sub-Divisional Market Committee, Srirampur Marketing Check Gate, Srirampur, Marketing Inspector, Gauhati Sub-Divisional Market Committee, Changsari Centre, respectively. It has insisted that these officials of the Board are collecting cess on the instructions of the Respondents 1 to 4. 9. The Respondent No. 1 in his affidavit while pointing out that he had ceased to be the Chairman of the Board w.e.f. 20.1.2009 has categorically denied the imputation of willful violation of the directions contained in the judgment and order involved. 9. The Respondent No. 1 in his affidavit while pointing out that he had ceased to be the Chairman of the Board w.e.f. 20.1.2009 has categorically denied the imputation of willful violation of the directions contained in the judgment and order involved. He has stated that during his tenure as the Chairman of the Board, the cess has been levied only on the goods where the purchasers of the agricultural produce had been unable to satisfy the authorities as to whether the sale and purchase thereof had been completed outside the State of Assam. The allegation that cess was levied by the Marketing Board officials by refusing to inspect the documents produced by the purchasers has been denied. The answering Respondent has averred that the contents of the letters dated 16.9.2008 and 23.9.2008 addressed by the Petitioner to the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer of the Board respectively were the same and that before the letter dated 16.9.2008 could be responded to, a reply had been issued by the Chief Executive Officer on 30.9.2008. There was thus no necessity of replying to the letter dated 16.9.2008. While admitting the press statement by him, the answering Respondent has specifically denied that thereby he has encouraged the officers of the Marketing Board to levy and collect cess in violation of the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008 of this Court. It was only sought to be clarified thereby that imposition of cess on notified agricultural goods had not been totally banned by the High Court. Emphasising on the burden of the buyers/purchasers of the agricultural produce to dislodge the presumption of sale/purchase under Section 21 of the Act, the answering Respondent has underlined that their representatives do not cooperate with the officials of the Board so much so that most of them even refuse to produce the relevant documents pertaining to the transaction for due perusal and inspection inspite of being sought for by the authorities at the site. The deponent, however, has expressed his inability to respond to the allegations of disobedience made on the basis of individual instances for the non-availability of the related official records, he being out of office. The deponent, however, has expressed his inability to respond to the allegations of disobedience made on the basis of individual instances for the non-availability of the related official records, he being out of office. While insisting that the members of the Petitioner association are duty bound to produce the documents of sale/purchase outside the State for exemption from payment of cess and that such an impost, if found refundable, provisions therefore exist in the Rules, the deponent has offered unconditional apology for any unintentional actions amounting to possible violation of the directions of this Court. The availability of a remedy to the members of the Petitioner association before the Committee constituted of this Court has also been stressed upon. The imputation that inspite of the production of all necessary documents, the officials of the Board and the Market committees during his tenure had collected cess or that on the resistance to pay the cess, the trucks were whisked to undisclosed locations and the drivers thereof were confined in the office of the check gates have been categorically denied. 10. The Respondent No. 2 in his counter has stated to have functioned as the Chief Executive Officer of the Board between 15.6.2007 and 23.10.2008. While denying the allegation of collection of cess by refusing to inspect the documents when produced by the members of the Petitioner association in violation of the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008, the answering Respondent has reiterated that the Petitioner's letter dated 23.9.2008 had been duly replied to. He has stated that to his knowledge, the members of the Petitioner could not produce the documents to establish that the sale/purchase of the agriculture produce involved had been completed outside the State of Assam and that therefore they were liable to pay cess in terms of the judgment and order of this Court. According to him, the documents produced by the members of the Petitioner association were not sufficient to ascertain as to whether the sale/purchase had taken place outside the State of Assam. While insisting that the judgment and order of this Court have been scrupulously complied with, the answering Respondent has offered unqualified and unconditional apology for any act or omission of his which this Court may construe to be contemptuous. 11. While insisting that the judgment and order of this Court have been scrupulously complied with, the answering Respondent has offered unqualified and unconditional apology for any act or omission of his which this Court may construe to be contemptuous. 11. The Respondent No. 3 and 8 in their counter affirmed by the former as the Chief Executive Officer in-Charge of the Board have in categorical terms denied the allegation of violation or disregard of the judgment and order of this Court. While contending that the averments made in the contempt petition are vague and argumentative and as such not demonstrative of any disobedience of the above decision of this Court by the Respondents, it has been pleaded that the Petitioner's endeavour thereby is to subjugate the authorities of the Board and to desist them from performing from statutory duties and functions under the Act and the Rules. The answering Respondents have stated that the officers of the Board levied cess only on goods where the purchasers of such agricultural goods are unable to satisfy the authorities at the check gate or within the market areas that the sale and purchase of such goods have been completed outside the State of Assam. The allegation of refusal by them to inspect the documents produced by the purchasers and harassments by seizure of goods, unnecessary interception of the trucks, diversion thereof to unknown locations and confinement of the drivers have been specifically denied. The answering Respondents have stated that seizures have been effected only in those cases where after repeated notices/requests the buyers/purchasers of agriculture produce operating within the market area have not obtained licence which is mandatory under the Act. Same stand with regard to the reply to the Petitioner's representations as taken by the Respondent No. 1 has been adopted by them. They have reiterated that in terms of Section 21 of the Act, the burden of dislodging the presumption envisaged therein is on the buyer/purchaser. They have also affirmed that the representatives of the buyers/purchasers do not cooperate with the officers of the Board so much so that they refuse to produce the relevant documents pertaining to the purchases for due inspection at the check gates. Specific denials to the assertions pertaining to the individual instances of the alleged transactions have made which would be appropriately sequenced while scrutinising the imputations. 12. Specific denials to the assertions pertaining to the individual instances of the alleged transactions have made which would be appropriately sequenced while scrutinising the imputations. 12. While maintaining that the members of the Petitioner association though had been operating as traders within the State of Assam for several years past, most of them had not or refused to obtain licence under the Act inspite of repeated requests, the Respondents have insisted that unless appropriate documents are produced by their representatives to substantiate their claim that the agricultural produce have not been purchased locally or within the market area, they are duty bound to pay the levy under the Act. It has been alleged that inspite of the demands by the officers of the Board and Market Committees to produce appropriate documents supporting the claim of the buyers/purchasers or to pay cess in the contrary, the members of the Petitioner association and/or their representatives have consciously refused to pay cess and instead endeavoured to forcibly take away their loaded trucks/lorries causing interference with the official works of the Board or the Market Committees. The answering Respondents have asserted that in terms of the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008, the members of the Petitioner association are duty bound to comply with the provisions of the Act and to cooperate with the officers of the Board and the Marketing Committees to act in compliance thereof. The provisions in the Rules for refund of cess not payable and the alternative remedy available to the buyers/purchasers for the same relief before the Committee constituted by this Court have also been referred to. The Respondents, therefore, have emphatically denied the allegation of willful violation of the judgment and order of this Court and have insisted that the members of the Petitioner association have deliberately misinterpreted the same and have been attempting to impose themselves on the authorities of the Board and the Market Committees. Without prejudice to the above, the Respondents have offered unqualified and unconditional apology to the Court in the event of any act or actions being regarded to be opposed to the letter and spirit of the judgment and order. 13. The Petitioner in its separate reply affidavit in addition to reaffirmation of the averments made in the contempt petition has averred that the Gauhati Sub-Divisional Market Committee collects cess at the check gates established by it. 13. The Petitioner in its separate reply affidavit in addition to reaffirmation of the averments made in the contempt petition has averred that the Gauhati Sub-Divisional Market Committee collects cess at the check gates established by it. While reiterating that inspite of all documents evidencing completion of sale/purchase of the agricultural produce involved outside the State of Assam, the Respondents forcefully impose cess, it has been contended that such a levy is not exacted as mandated under the law namely on the basis of returns. Some clarifications vis-a-vis the denials made by the Respondents pertaining to the individual instances have also been furnished. By an additional affidavit, the Petitioner has also brought on record the notifications dated 17.4.1984 and 31.8.1994 constituting the Gauhati Sub-Divisional Market Area. It has been pleaded that not only the interception of the truck/lorries of the members of the Petitioner association carrying the agricultural produce to their godowns are illegal and unauthorised, as cess under the Act is leviable only on such goods sold/purchased or deemed to be sold/deemed to have been purchased within the State of Assam and not on the incoming goods, the Petitioner has further contended that the Srirampur Check Gate in the District of Kokrajhar and Buxirhat Check Gate in the District of Dhubri being located beyond the notified limits of the Gauhati Sub-Divisional Market Area, the collection of cess at the said check gates is per se unauthorised. The allegation of refusal by the members of the Petitioner association to obtain licence under the Act inspite of repeated reminders/requests by the authorities of the Board have also been denied. 14. In the backdrop of the above contentious assertions providing broad outlines of the areas of confrontation, the rival pleadings on the individual instances of alleged defiance of the judgment and order of this Court ought to be now noticed. Having regard to the gravity of the implications upon the proof of the infractions alleged, it is considered appropriate to extract the related averments in verbatim. To facilitate correlation of the facts with the concerned member of the Petitioner association, the excerpts are arranged in the same sequence as narrated in the writ petition. 15. Mr. Having regard to the gravity of the implications upon the proof of the infractions alleged, it is considered appropriate to extract the related averments in verbatim. To facilitate correlation of the facts with the concerned member of the Petitioner association, the excerpts are arranged in the same sequence as narrated in the writ petition. 15. Mr. Mishra in the above monolith of exchanges has emphatically argued that the unequivocal directives contained in the judgment and order to the contrary, the Respondents have with impugnity applied the legal fiction enjoined by Sub-section (7) of Section 21 of the Act to forcibly exact cess from the members of the Petitioner association by refusing to take note of the documents of completion of sale concerning, the relevant transactions. Not only such collection thus is infractive of the obvious precepts of the decision in that regard, the same had been effected beyond the market area contemplated by the Act and in violation of the provisions of Rule 21, 22 and 23 as well, he urged. The learned Sr. Counsel to endorse his submission has invited our attention in particular to the paragraphs 93, 94, 95 and 96 of the judgment and order. While admitting that meanwhile the findings contained therein negating the challenge to the vires of the Act are subjudice in appeal before the Apex Court, Mr. Mishra has contended that the above notwithstanding the Respondents are obliged in law to act in strict conformity with the parameters laid down by this Court in the matter of imposition and realisation of cess. To reinforce his plea of willful and deliberate violation by the Respondents, the learned Sr. Counsel has also referred to the letter dated 30.9.2008 of the Chief Executive Officer of the Board and the press statement dated 6.10.2008 of the Chairman thereof representing as if no restriction whatsoever had been imposed by the aforementioned judgment and order on the collection of cess under Section 21 of the Act by the Board. 16. Referring to the pleadings and the documents of the parties vis-a-vis the instances of alleged non-compliance involving M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills, the learned Sr. Counsel has maintained that the computation of the Central Sales Tax of Rs. 3616/- proclaims in clear terms the knowledge of the concerned authority of the tax invoice evidencing completion of sale of the agricultural produce involved, in the State of Bihar. Counsel has maintained that the computation of the Central Sales Tax of Rs. 3616/- proclaims in clear terms the knowledge of the concerned authority of the tax invoice evidencing completion of sale of the agricultural produce involved, in the State of Bihar. As the insistence and collection of the cess of Rs. 3616/- is thus in manifest violation of the letter and spirit of the judgment and order of this Court, Mr. Mishra has contended that the Respondents are guilty of contempt and are liable to be dealt with accordingly. The learned Sr. Counsel has further urged that not only the levy which is illegal otherwise has been realised at a check gate beyond the market area of the Board, the affidavit of the Respondents 3 and 8 qua this limb of the allegation projects suppression of facts rendering the said Respondents and deponent thereof in particular liable for perjury. 17. Mr. Mishra has further urged that the realisation had not been on the basis of the returns submitted by M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills and the Form-M is issued without any reference thereto in violation of Rule 21, 22 and 23. He urged as well that the check gate at which the exaction was effected being beyond the market area notified and is, therefore, unauthorised as well as repugnant to the directions of this Court as contained in the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008. 18. With reference to the imputation qua M/s Wheat Products Company, the learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that the consignment was intercepted in the process of the same being unloaded at the Changsari Railway Station to be loaded in the trucks. Though initially the officers of the Board did not relent even after being confronted with the judgment and order of this Court, they did not proceed further in the matter after an F.I.R. was lodged with the Noonmati Police Station. 19. Apropos the other incidents of violation involving Sri Ganesh Flour Mills, M/s Nowrangroy Metals Pvt. Ltd. and NU Foods Pvt. Ltd., the learned Sr. 19. Apropos the other incidents of violation involving Sri Ganesh Flour Mills, M/s Nowrangroy Metals Pvt. Ltd. and NU Foods Pvt. Ltd., the learned Sr. Counsel has argued with reference to the relevant documents emphasising in particular on the related railway receipts and the endorsements thereon that though the same indubitably establish that the sale of the agricultural produce involved had been completed outside the State of Assam, the consignments were illegally intercepted at the time of the delivery thereof being taken and subjected to cess and seizure without any justifiable reason. As the impugned actions of the officers and/or authorities of the Board and the concerned Market Committees are in blatant and outright contravention of the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008, being fully conscious and informed of the purport thereof, the Respondents are liable to be saddled with deterrent penalties in order to uphold the majesty of this Court and the supremacy of the rule of law, he pleaded. 20. Mr. Goswami per contra, profusely relying on the judgment and order allegedly disregarded has argued that as held therein, the check gates are not illegal or unauthorised and that the realisation of cess thereat subject to the prescriptions of Section 21of Rule 21, 22 and 23 has been approved thereby. The learned Sr. Counsel has assiduously pleaded that the concerned authorities of the Board in the facts and circumstances of the case have not willfully violated any direction contained in the said judgment and order. Even assuming without admitting that their understanding of the decision is erroneous, the same per se does not tantamount to contempt of this Court, he urged. Referring to Rule 25 of the Rules which contemplates refund of cess not liable to be realised and also the Committee constituted by this Court as a forum to pursue the said remedy, Mr. Goswami has contended that in absence of any scrutiny in any forum as on date, adjudging the alleged collections to be illegal and unauthorised, the accusation of contempt of this Court is misconceived. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that the indictments made are more with a view to seek a review of the judgment and order of this Court and do not constitute any foundation to invoke the contempt jurisdiction. 21. The learned Sr. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that the indictments made are more with a view to seek a review of the judgment and order of this Court and do not constitute any foundation to invoke the contempt jurisdiction. 21. The learned Sr. Counsel with regard to the episode involving M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills has argued that the pleaded stand of the Respondents 3 and 8 though may suffer from want of clarity and deficiency in drafting, the same does not tantamount to suppression of material facts or documents. Mr. Goswami argued that a levy effected on the documents claimed to have been produced by the members of the Petitioner association though in a given fact situation may constitute the subject matter of scrutiny to test the validity thereof, the same cannot provide a cause of action for a contempt proceeding. An erroneous understanding of the judgment and order involved leading to a levy thus ought not to be impeached as contumacious to attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, he pleaded. The learned Sr. Counsel contended that even assuming that the impost was collected on a wrong application of Section 21 on the comprehension that delivery of a consignment of agricultural produce within the market area or at the check gate was an incidence of levy, the legality or validity thereof though examinable in an appropriate forum if questioned, can by no means render the Respondents liable for contempt. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Sr. Counsel has submitted on instructions that the Respondents have offered unconditional and unqualified apology for any unintended omission or commission of theirs and that as the steps taken by them are bonafide and not geared towards any personal gain, the imputations brought against them ought not to be entertained. In support of his assertions, Mr. Goswami placed reliance on a host of decisions as hereunder:- 1. British India Corporation Ltd. vs. Market Committee, (1983) 1 SCC 196 2. Agricultural Market Committee vs. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 516 3. Indian Airports Employees Union vs. Ranjan Chatterjee and another, (1999) 2 SCC 537 4. Mrityunjoy Das and another vs. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and other, (2001) 3 SCC 739 5. Anil Ratan Sarkar and other vs. Hirak Ghosh and other, (2002) 4 SCC 21 6. Agricultural Market Committee vs. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 516 3. Indian Airports Employees Union vs. Ranjan Chatterjee and another, (1999) 2 SCC 537 4. Mrityunjoy Das and another vs. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and other, (2001) 3 SCC 739 5. Anil Ratan Sarkar and other vs. Hirak Ghosh and other, (2002) 4 SCC 21 6. Ashok Paper Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Godha and other, (2003) 11 SCC 1 7. Director of Education, Uttarchanchal and other vs. Ved Prakash Joshi, (2005) 6 SCC 98 8. Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) vs. N. Vasudeva Rao and other, (2007) 14 SCC 165 9. Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Gautam Goswami and other, (2008) 5 SCC 339 22. Mr. Bhuyan appearing for Respondent No. 1 while reiterating that the said Respondent had vacated the office of the Chairman of the Board in January, 2009 has generally adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the other Respondents. 23. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the competing pleadings, the persuasive arguments based thereon and documents brought on record. The charge being deliberate and willful disobedience of the directions embodied in the judgment and order referred to herein above, a prefatory premise outlined on the salient features thereof would facilitate proper comprehension of the rival stands. 24. The decision had sought to answer amongst others a challenge to the constitutional validity of the various provisions of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972, in the year 2000 and 2006 as well as to the competence of the Board and the Market Committees under it as well as the mode of realisation of the impost. Amyriad of incidental issues including that of remand of the cess so collected was also dealt with. Amyriad of incidental issues including that of remand of the cess so collected was also dealt with. While dwelling on the impugnments of the legal fiction envisaged in the Explanation to Section 21 of the Act as ultra vires being wholly unrelated to the intrinsic attributes of sale or purchase as recognisable in law and further incompatible with the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, a central legislation, this Court had held that the events contemplated in the said explanation were conceivable inscripts of such a transaction and having regard to the underlying objective of preventing evasion of cess and to relieve the Market Committee or the Board of the impracticable task of marking each and every such deal in the notified area were not antagonistic and repugnant to the avowed purposes of the Act. The rebuttable presumption lodged in the explanation was noticed so much so that unless the contrary was proved, a specified agricultural produce would be deemed to have been bought or sold in the notified market area in the three eventualities set out in Clause (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof. It was held that these eventualities are plausible concomitants of a transaction of sale or purchase of a specified agricultural produce and were not transgressive of the contours of the purpose for which the legal fiction had been envisioned. The challenge to the explanation of Section 21 was thus negated. The plea of it being repugnant to the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, was also repelled. The assailment of the empowerment of the Board to levy and collect cess under Section21(2) was also not sustained and it was further determined that thereby it, for all intents and purposes, levied and collected cess for anyone or more of the market committee(s) as its agent and that till the Assam Agricultural Produce Market(s) (General), Rules, 1975, (hereafter refer to as the Rules) were amended appropriately, Rules 21, 22 and 23 would serve as inbuilt guidelines therefor. 25. This Court further held in the context of the strident denouncement of the alleged forcible realisation of cess in exercise of its powers under Section 21(2) of the Act that the establishment of the check gates to thwart evasion of payment of cess and levy and collection thereof was in alignment with the letter and spirit of the Act. 25. This Court further held in the context of the strident denouncement of the alleged forcible realisation of cess in exercise of its powers under Section 21(2) of the Act that the establishment of the check gates to thwart evasion of payment of cess and levy and collection thereof was in alignment with the letter and spirit of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, this Court noticed that the Petitioners had not condemned the check gates for want of approval of the Board or the State Government, as the case may be, and that no reservation in this regard had also been expressed by the State Government. This was in the context of Section 21A(ii) of the Act whereby the Board had been conferred with the discretion of establishing composite check gate(s) for all Market Committees or any check gate at any point within a market area of any Market Committee whenever felt necessary with the approval of the State Government. 26. Paragraphs 94, 95 and 96 of the judgment, which constitutes the edifice of the rival formulations deserve to be quoted for ready reference. 94. The realization of the cess, however, by all means would have to be in scrupulous observance of the necessary preconditions embodied in Section 21 of the Act and the Rule 21, 22 and 23 of the Rules as discussed hereinabove. The legal fiction engrafted in Section 21 would apply only in absence of any direct evidence of sale to the contrary. The levy and collection of cess on the specified agricultural produce would ensue only on the sale or purchase thereof in the market area as comprehended therein as well as the rate specified. The fictional factors would hold the sway only in absence of any direct evidence of sale or purchase repelling the same. In other words, the legal fiction would operate if the trader/dealer concerned fails to establish against sale or purchase of the specified agricultural produce in the concerned notified market area. This is so, be the collector of the cess is the concerned Market Committee or the Board on its behalf. In the latter eventuality, the additional pre-requisites as prescribed by Section 21(2) namely necessity of such realisation and approval of the State Government would have to be essentially complied with. 95. This is so, be the collector of the cess is the concerned Market Committee or the Board on its behalf. In the latter eventuality, the additional pre-requisites as prescribed by Section 21(2) namely necessity of such realisation and approval of the State Government would have to be essentially complied with. 95. The Petitioners' allegation of forceful collection of cess at the check gates by the Board through its Marketing Inspectors using the seal of different committees irrespective of the ultimate destinations of the goods and in contraventions of the preconditions mandated by Section 21(2), if true, the realization would per se be illegal, unauthorised, null and void. The sample documents produced by the Petitioners to corroborate their stand that the goods intercepted at the check gates were on transit on completion of their sale outside the State of Assam though prima facie probative of the said plea in respect of the transactions referred to therein those are inadequate to be acted upon to return a finding that such an inference is possible in all cases of such detentions and collections at the check gates. Whereas the statutory stipulated imperatives for the application of the legal fiction are not in doubt, the documents produced by the Petitioners, in absence of a probe into the individual facts cannot be accepted as an irrefutable guarantee of completion of sale or purchase of all consignments of specified agricultural produce halted, scrutinised and subjected to the impost under the Act. In exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not equipped to embark on this exercise. 96. The view expressed by the Apex Court in Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Limited (supra), in the contextual facts of that case on an interpretation of Section 19 and 20of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, was founded on a host of unimpeachable evidence of completion of the transaction of sale before the agricultural produce involved was weighed at Hyderabad. The facts unassailably demonstrated that the goods involved were ascertainable and in a deliverable state at the time of their interception at Hyderabad. The facts unassailably demonstrated that the goods involved were ascertainable and in a deliverable state at the time of their interception at Hyderabad. Testimony of such a type, if produced by a trader or dealer at the check gate or in any notified market area under the Act which rules out any further sale of the specified agricultural produce at that point of time would definitely disarm the market committee of the Board to levy or collect cess thereon as otherwise it would be violative of the essence of Section 21 of the Act. In absence of such overwhelming evidence regarding all cases of unauthorised levy and collection of cess at the check gates, it is not possible for this Court to adjudge the same as illegal and nonest. However, if on an application of this precept on investigation of the individual facts, it transpires to be so then unreservedly the trader and the dealer concerned would be entitled to the consequential reliefs. 27. This Court while upholding the validity of the legal fiction engrafted in Section 21 had clarified that the fictional factors would apply only in absence of any direct evidence of sale or purchase displacing the same. Referring to the sample documents produced by the Petitioners in these proceedings to authenticate their stand that the goods intercepted at the check gates had been on transit following the completion of sale outside the State of Assam, this Court observed that though those might be prima facie probative of the said plea in respect of the transactions reflected thereby, the same were inadequate to conclude that such an inference was possible in all cases of detentions and collections at the check gates. No final opinion thus was expressed by the Court on the issue based on such documents. It was instead propounded that though the statutorily stipulated imperatives for the application of legal fiction are not in doubt, the documents produced by the Petitioners, in absence of an analysis of the individual facts could not be accepted as an irrefutable guarantee of completion of sale or purchase of all consignments of specified agricultural produce intercepted and subjected to the impost under the Act. 28. 28. The decision of the Apex Court in Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Limited, supra, as relied upon by the Petitioners was referred to, to conclude that overwhelming evidence of completion of sale as evidenced by the facts of that case would, however, disarm the Market Committee or the Board to levy or to collect cess on the basis of the legal fiction lodged in Section 21 of the Act. This Court observing absence of evidence of such quality vis-a-vis all cases of alleged unauthorised levy and collection of cess at the check gates, refrained from sustaining the plea of the Petitioners to the said effect. In order to appropriately adjudicate the claims for refund made by any trader in the above premise, this Court directed constitution of a Committee in consultation with the Board, the Market Committees and the Petitioner association and further outlined the issues to be addressed by it as and when called upon to do so. 29. This Court, therefore, as the judgment and order would demonstrate did not express any final opinion on the Petitioners' accusation of forceful and unauthorised collection of cess by the Board and the Market Committees/Inspectors at the check gates or at the Railway Stations and left it to be determined in individual fact situations. Whereas the validity of the legal fiction was upheld, the presumption of sale and purchase based thereon was construed to be rebuttable, if proved to the contrary by the trader concerned on the strength of contemporaneous documents and/or records. Axiomatically, therefore, the concerned officers of the Board and its Market Committees were left at liberty to scrutinise such testimonials to be satisfied about the completion of sale/purchase of the agricultural produce involved beyond the State of Assam so as to relieve the trader concerned of his obligation to pay cess under the Act. In other words, to effectuate the legal fiction under Section 21 of the Act, it was construed to be the duty and/or the obligation of the officers of the Board and its Market Committees to satisfy themselves that the agricultural produce at the check gates or the Railway Stations within the market area had in fact been sold or purchased beyond the State of Assam, if so insisted upon by the trader concerned, on a scrutiny of all relevant documents to that effect. If on an inspection of the documents produced such sale or purchase is established, no cess is leviable under the Act on such produce and in such an eventuality, the legal fiction or the presumption is not invokable. If however the trader fails to produce such documents as unimpeachable proof of completion of such transaction outside the State of Assam, the officers of the Board and/or the Market Committees would be within their authority and jurisdiction to exact the said impost. This appears to us, had been the obvious and unmistakeable determination in the decision involved. 30. The charge of conscious non-compliance made in the case in hand on the basis of the individual instances, if sustained, will render the persons responsible, liable for civil contempt defined in Section 2(iii) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereafter referred to as the Contempt Act). Civil Contempt is defined to mean willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. 31. The nature, scope and extent of the contempt jurisdiction of Courts has been receiving constant dialectical, judicial surveillance. In reiteration of its earlier expositions, the Apex Court in recent times in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union, supra, had ruled that the expression willful means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. 32. Though dealing with a situation suggesting criminal contempt under Section 3(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Singh, supra, cautioned against ostentatious exercise of power in the garb of punishment for its contempt. One of the three acts identified by their Lordships as instances of such exercise is that of punishing persons for unintended acts or technical violations by treating them as contempt of Court. 33. One of the three acts identified by their Lordships as instances of such exercise is that of punishing persons for unintended acts or technical violations by treating them as contempt of Court. 33. The Apex Court in Director of Education, Uttarchanchal and other vs. Ved Prakash Joshi and other, supra, Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Gautam Goswami and other, supra, Union of India and other vs. Subedar Devassy P.V. supra, Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) vs. N. Vasudeva Rao and other, supra, and of the High Court of Calcutta in Ranjugopal Mukherjee and other vs. Ramapada Mahalder and other, supra, dealing with civil contempt under the Contempt Act has consistently propounded that in the exercise of a contempt jurisdiction, the Court 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 and order. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by it earlier. Their Lordships held that in such a proceeding, the Court cannot traverse beyond the order alleged to have been disobeyed and cannot test the correctness or otherwise thereof or issue additional directions or delete any, lest it would amount to the invocation of its review jurisdiction. 34. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in Mrityunjoy Das and another vs. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and other, supra, and Anil Ratan Sarkar and other vs. Hirak Ghosh and other, supra, also dealing with cases of civil contempt reiterated that the extra ordinary jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of the contempt act is quasi criminal and as such the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach has to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. It was held that in the event two interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation, the act or acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contemptuous in nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the willful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise. In such a premise, the outrage by way of contempt cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 35. A doubt in the matter as regards the willful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise. In such a premise, the outrage by way of contempt cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 35. That a bonafide act on the interpretation of an order of a Court would not tantamount to willful disobedience thereof in the contextual facts was ruled in Indian Airports Employees Union vs. Ranjan Chatterjee and another, supra, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 36. In British India Corporation Ltd., supra, challenge was laid to the levy of market fee under Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, read with Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962, framed thereunder. The raw material involved as the fact discloses was being purchased by the Head Office of the Appellant Company and despatched to both its mills at Dhariwal and Kanpur. The Market fee was levied on the consideration that raw material used in the Dhariwal Mill was being purchased locally within the territorial limits of the concerned Market Committee. The Appellant company asserted to the contrary and denied any purchase or sale of such raw material within such area. Admittedly, however, the raw material received by the Dhariwal Mills was weighed within the notified area of the Market Committee. The incidence of delivery in terms of Section 23 of the aforementioned Act was a condition precedent for the levy. The records produced revealed that the Appellant company had entered into a number of contracts with various suppliers of raw wool in the country subject to the stipulation that 80% of the price thereof would be payable against the documents and the balance after receipt and examination of the same to be despatched to Dhariwal Mills directly. Rule 29(7) nestled a legal fiction to the effect that an agricultural produce would be deemed to have been bought or sold in a market area, if (a) the agreement of sale or purchase thereof is entered into in the said area; or (b) in pursuance of the agreement of sale or purchase the agricultural produce is weighed in the said area; or (c) in pursuance of the agreement of sale or purchase the agricultural produce is delivered in the said area to the purchaser or to some other person on behalf of the purchaser. 37. 37. It was held that in the facts of the case Clause (2) and (3) would be attracted if pursuant to the agreement of sale or purchase even if entered into at Kanpur (beyond the territorial limits of the market area at Dhariwal) the agricultural produce is weighed in the market area or if in pursuance of the agreement of sale or purchase the agriculture produce is delivered in the area to the purchaser or to some other person on his behalf. Having regard to the covenants as above, subject to which transactions were undertaken, the application of the legal fiction was upheld taking note of the instance of delivery and weighment within the market notified area of the Market Committee at Dhariwal. 38. The pleaded facts pertaining to the incidents of collection of cess at the check gates and/or the Railway Station(s) in case in hand do not demonstrate similar conditions governing the transactions of sale and purchase figuring therein. 39. In Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Limited, supra, the Respondent Company had imported copra, a notified agricultural produce under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, which was admittedly weighed at Hyderabad. The Appellant Company in terms of Rule 74(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Rules, 1969 and explanation to Bye Law 24(5) of its Bye Laws demanded cess on the basis of a statutory presumption contained therein to the effect that if a notified agricultural produce is weighed or measured within the notified area of the Committee, it shall be deemed to have been purchased or sold within that area. 40. The Apex Court, on a survey of Section 12 of the said Act, in Explanation (I) whereof such a presumption was permissible vis-a-vis all notified agricultural produce or live stock taken out of a notified market area unless the contrary is proved, held against the vires of Rule 74(2) and Bye Law 24(5) which palpably expanded the ambit of such presumption. Referring to the limits of the jurisdiction of the delegatee of such legislation, their Lordships reiterated that a subsidiary legislation has to be within the limits outlined by the legislative policy determined by the legislature and can by no means trench upon an area or field not covered by the parent enactment. Referring to the limits of the jurisdiction of the delegatee of such legislation, their Lordships reiterated that a subsidiary legislation has to be within the limits outlined by the legislative policy determined by the legislature and can by no means trench upon an area or field not covered by the parent enactment. In the facts of the case, however, their Lordships while referring inter alia to Section 20 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, held that as the subject matter of sale were ascertained goods and in a deliverable state and that the terms of the contract disclosed that the seller would not be liable for any future loss thereof which were being despatched at the risk of the Respondent purchaser who had obtained insurance thereof, the title in the goods had passed to the buyer at the time of the making of the contract and that therefore the weighment thereof at Hyderabad or collection of documents pertaining thereto from the Bank at Hyderabad were of no consequence. Having regard to the preponderant evidence available in support of the above factual aspects, the levy was held to be invalid. Noticeably the Apex Court, in the facts of this case while nullifying the cess took note of the stipulation whereunder the seller had excused himself from any liability for any future loss of goods once put on transit, which were then to be transported at the risk of the buyer. The incidences of insurance of the goods by the buyer and payment of policy premium by him treating the goods to be his own while on transit were also acknowledged to be testament to the passing of the title in the goods to the purchaser/buyer at the point of despatch thereof. 41. The averments in the pleadings and the documents on record in the instant case demonstrate in unequivocal terms the intention of the parties concerned to complete the sale/purchase of the agricultural produce outside the State of Assam, insistence for cess by either disregarding the relevant documents to this effect or overlooking the related facts would be an act inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the determination of this Court. In the light of the findings recorded by this Court in the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008 pertaining to the aspect of check gates under Section 21A of the Act, the plea based on the assertion of location thereof beyond the notified market area does not call for a fresh scrutiny in the present proceeding. 42. We now need to revert to the incidents in particular cited by the Petitioner to reinforce its imputation of conscious and deliberate violations of the directions of this Court by the Respondents. 43. Apropos M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills, the documents annexed to the contempt petition include the tax invoices dated 20.10.2008 issued for M/s Pawansut Rice and Oil Mills, Araria, Bihar, the Lorry Challan dated 20.10.2008, the certificate of insurance dated 21.10.2008 issued by the New India Assurance Company Limited, the receipt Form K dated 22.10.2008 issued on behalf of the Guwahati Sub-Divisional Market Committee and Challan in Form M dated 22.10.2008 endorsed by the Marketing Inspector, Guwahati Sub-Divisional Market Committee. 44. A plain reading of the tax invoice discloses that the agricultural produce involved was wheat on which Central Sales Tax @ 1% i.e. Rs. 3616/- had been charged making the consignment worth Rs. 3,65,169/-. The commodity was transported in the truck/lorry No. U.R 22T 1665 and was despatched to M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills, Amingaon, Guwahati. The lorry challan aforementioned while affirming the other particulars as above mentioned the freight to be Rs. 19,000/-. The same discloses the consignor to be Pawansut Rice and Oil Mills and the consignee to be M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills. The certificate of insurance referred to policy No. 530900/21/08/02/00000015 dated 21.10.2008 and covered the risk of the aforementioned consignment carried in the said truck from Araria (Bihar) to Changsari, Guwahati by road. The name of the insured is mentioned therein to be M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills. On a conjoint consideration of the above documents, this Court is of the opinion, having regard to the essential features of a transaction or sale or purchase acknowledged in law and the factors approved by the Apex Court in Agricultural Market Committee vs. Shalimar Chemical Works Limited, supra, M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills that these documents demonstrably and irrefutably prove the completion of transaction of purchase of the wheat involved by M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills from M/s Pawansut Rice and Oil Mills at Araria, Bihar. Though in his affidavit, the Respondent No. 3 sought to assert that the driver of the truck transporting the consignment on demand had produced only a copy of his driving licence, the registration certificate of the vehicle and the lorry challan dated 20.10.2008, an endeavour has been made in course of the arguments that the omission to mention about the other documents was a shortfall in drafting the reply and that the same ought not to be construed to be an intentional suppression of material facts. In other words, the averment of the Petitioner emphasising production of the aforementioned documents before the concerned authorities of the Guwahati Sub-Divisional Market Committee has thus not been denied by the Respondents. Apart therefrom, the very fact that an amount of Rs. 3616/- which is arithmetically 1% of the value of the wheat i.e. Rs. 3,61,553/- realised as cess under the Act attests in clear terms that the aforementioned documents more particularly the tax invoice had not only been produced before the authority concerned but were also taken note of by it. Had it not been so, it would not have been feasible for the said authority to compute 1% of the value of the wheat to quantify the amount of cess as levied and realised. The Petitioner's assertion that the said trader was not allowed to submit its return of daily purchase and sale in the Form M and in fact, the same had been imposed on it by the Marketing Inspector, Guwahati Sub-Divisional Market Committee, also stands established from the entries made in the copy thereof dated 22.10.2008. Though under Rule 23 of the Rules, it is the legal obligation of a licenced dealer to submit to the concerned Marketing Committee, a return in Form M showing his purchase and sale of each transaction of agricultural produce within 4 days from the date thereof so as to enable it (Committee) to levy cess under Section 21 on the basis thereof providing as well the consequential investigative steps to be adopted in case of habitual defaults, the Respondents are conspicuously silent in this regard. Noticeably though the Rule permits a time limit of four days for the licenced dealer to submit his return in Form M as above, the return in Form M in question appears to have been prepared by the Marketing Inspectors, Guwahati Sub-Division Marketing Committee, on the very same date representing that the cess had been collected on the basis of the said document submitted by the trader concerned. 45. Having regard to the determination made by this Court in its judgment and order dated 12.9.2008, the pleadings of the parties and the documents accompanying the same, in our considered opinion, the levy and collection of cess from M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills on 22.10.2008, establish a willful noncompliance of the directions relatable to the levy and realisation of cess under Section 21 of the Act as contained therein. The documents filed by the Petitioner and scrutinised by us do not leave any iota of doubt that the concerned authorities of the Board/Guwahati Sub-Divisional Market Committee had levied and realised cess being fully aware that in terms of the aforementioned judgment and order, it was not permissible to do so by applying the legal fiction contained in the explanation to Section 21 of the Act. In the face of the sale invoice, the lorry challan and the certificate of insurance which unequivocally and beyond any reasonable doubt prove completion of sale of the agricultural produce at Araria, Bihar, there was no scope whatsoever for the authorities of the Board/Sub-Divisional Market Committee to infer to the contrary and that the legal fiction was available to levy and realise cess under the Act. 46. Vis-a-vis M/s Wheat Products Company, Guwahati, Assam, the documents produced by the Petitioner include the sale invoice No. 01/02 dated 23.9.2008 issued by M/s Tirupati Commercial, Gorakhpur, U.P., for consignment of Wheat valued at Rs. 6,82,672/- on which central sales tax of Rs. 13,654/- had been charged and realised. The said document further discloses that an amount of Rs. 52,474/- had been charged as railway freight. Another sale invoice No. 01/01 of the same date also issued by the same firm for wheat valued at Rs. 6,82,672/- discloses that an amount of Rs. 13,654/- and 52,474/- had been realised by way of central sales tax and railway freight. The said document further discloses that an amount of Rs. 52,474/- had been charged as railway freight. Another sale invoice No. 01/01 of the same date also issued by the same firm for wheat valued at Rs. 6,82,672/- discloses that an amount of Rs. 13,654/- and 52,474/- had been realised by way of central sales tax and railway freight. These two consignments, the documents aforesaid disclose were to be carried in wagons No. 993169 BCNAWR and 953083 BCNACR from Nakha Jungle to New Guwahati. The Railway Receipt No. 212000105 dated 23.9.2008 also produced endorses the above facts recording M/s Tirupati Commercial and M/s Wheat Products Company to be the sender and consignee respectively. 47. The answering Respondents have not specifically refuted these documents but instead have referred to a railway receipt No. C081602 dated 16.11.2008 showing the consignor's name as "A.R. Agro Industries, Chaurichaura" and the consignee's name and address as "self. According to them, this railway receipt demonstrates that the amount of wheat mentioned therein had been brought by the aforementioned firm from Chaurichaura to Changsari in the State of Assam. Referring to the endorsement on the backside of the document to the effect "Please deliver to M/s Wheat Products Company" it has been averred that on enquiries being made, it transpired that M/s Wheat Products Company purchased the wheat covered by the said railway receipt only at Changsari within the State of Assam and the market area of Guwahati Sub-Division Market Committee. The Petitioner in its reply has controverted these to contend that the wheat covered by the railway receipt had been purchased by it from M/s A.R. Agro Industries beyond the State of Assam and that as is permissible under the Railways Act, 1989, the railway receipt had been duly endorsed to it following which it had become the absolute owner of the goods. The sale invoice dated 16.11.2008 issued by A.R. Agro Industries, Chaurichaura, U.P., produced by the Petitioner discloses that the consignment of wheat was valued Rs. 13,10,708/- inclusive of Rs. 25,700/- as central sales tax. It records that the commodity was to be transported by railway wagons BCN-152664, BCN-91663. The Railway receipt bearing No. 061602 also dated 16.11.2008 shows A.R. Agro Industries to be the consignor with "self as the consignee. The consignment was to be transported from Chaurichaura to Changsari in the State of Assam. 13,10,708/- inclusive of Rs. 25,700/- as central sales tax. It records that the commodity was to be transported by railway wagons BCN-152664, BCN-91663. The Railway receipt bearing No. 061602 also dated 16.11.2008 shows A.R. Agro Industries to be the consignor with "self as the consignee. The consignment was to be transported from Chaurichaura to Changsari in the State of Assam. The RR carried an endorsement of the AR Agro Industries to the effect "Please deliver to M/s Wheat Products Company." The documents produced by the Petitioner in connection with this transaction also include one providing insurance cover to the consignment disclosing M/s Wheat Products Company to be the insured. The document refers to policy No. 530900/21/08/02/00000017 and also the value of the consignment to be Rs. 13,10,708/- to be transported from Chaurichaura to Changsari, Guwahati. Reference of the RR No. C061602 dated 16.11.2008 is also discernible therefrom. 48. Endorsement of a Railway Receipt (for short also referred to as RR) is permissible under the Railways Act, 1989, whereunder in terms of Section 74 on such endorsement, the property in the consignment covered thereby would pass to the consignee or the endorsee, as the case may be, on the delivery of such railway receipt to him and he would then have all the rights and liability of the consignor. The Railway Administration under this Act then is obliged to deliver the consignment to the endorsee on the surrender of such railway receipt. Having regard to the documents referred to hereinabove, the act of seizure for violation of Section 13(2) of the Act though per se may not be transgressive of the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008, any demand of cess under Section 21 thereof would certainly be in contravention thereof. These documents, which demonstrate payment of central sales tax on the value of wheat, insurance thereof by M/s Wheat Products Company and the endorsement of the railway receipt covering the same in its favour are absolute and wholesome to establish that the transaction of sale/purchase of the commodity involved had been completed in U.P. The Respondents though undoubtedly had the right to intercept the consignment and verify the documents accompanying the same could not have, in the above facts and circumstances, demanded cess thereon. 49. The documents pertaining to the transaction involving M/s Shree Ganesh Flour Mills include sale invoice dated 29.9.2008 involving two consignments of wheat valued at Rs. 49. The documents pertaining to the transaction involving M/s Shree Ganesh Flour Mills include sale invoice dated 29.9.2008 involving two consignments of wheat valued at Rs. 6,49,408/- and Rs. 13,24,800/- inclusive of central sales tax @ 2% on the price of the product. The said invoices disclose that these consignments had been despatched by railway wagons being covered by RR No. C-065284 and C-065287. The aforementioned railway receipts on the face of those, show the consignor to be Shankar Lal Manoj Kumar, Chourachoura, Gorakhpur, U.P. and the consignee as "self. The sale invoice referred to above had been issued by M/s Shankar Lal Manoj Kumar, Chourachoura, Gorakhpur, U.P. The consignment under the R.R.s as it reveals was to be transported from Chourachoura C.C. to New Guwahati (NGC). On the reverse of the railway receipts there is an endorsement to the effect:- Pl. deliver to Shree Ganesh Flour Mill Sd/- For Shanker Lal Manoj Kumar Illegible Prop./Manager 50. Noticeably these documents have been appended to the affidavit in reply of the Petitioner and presumably therefore the answering Respondents in their affidavit have mentioned that these have not been annexed to the contempt petition. Neither the Petitioner has claimed that these consignments were insured nor have it alleged that any cess was realised in connection therewith. In this view of the matter, this Court having regard to the aspect under scrutiny does not consider it essential to dilate further in this regard. 51. The documents appertaining to the transaction relating to M/s No wrangroy Metals Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati, and produced by the Petitioner include a sale invoice dated 25.10.2008 issued by the Manoj Traders, Chauri Chaura, Gorakhpur, U.P. showing M/s Nowrangroy Metals Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati, Assam to be the purchaser of wheat, the consignment whereof is valued Rs. 33,75,500/- inclusive of central sales tax @ 2% on the price of the commodity. The document further evinces that the consignment was to be transported in five railway wagons numbers whereof have been referred to therein and covered by railway receipt No. A417371. The aforementioned railway receipt dated 25/10/2008 refers Manoj Traders as consignor with "self as the consignee. The consignment as per the said document was to be transported from Chauri Chaura to Changsari (CGS). On the reverse of the said document, the endorsement "Please deliver to Nowrangroy Metals Pvt. Ltd." appears made by Manoj Traders on 25.10.2008. The aforementioned railway receipt dated 25/10/2008 refers Manoj Traders as consignor with "self as the consignee. The consignment as per the said document was to be transported from Chauri Chaura to Changsari (CGS). On the reverse of the said document, the endorsement "Please deliver to Nowrangroy Metals Pvt. Ltd." appears made by Manoj Traders on 25.10.2008. The document of insurance dated 27.10.2008 of the National Insurance Company Ltd. covering the said consignment is also on record showing M/s Nowrangroy Metals Private Limited to be the insured. This document mentions the RR No. A-417371 and also discloses that the same is to be transported from Choura Choura CC to Changsari. Photo copies of two receipts in Form K issued on 28.10.2008 by the Assistant Marketing Inspector, Changsari Centre under GSMC, Upahali evidencing collection of cess of Rs. 810/- and Rs. 1080/- respectively qua the lorry/truck AMZ 391 and AS25 7327 have also been incorporated in the pleadings of the Petitioner. Photo copies of two returns in Form M relating to M/s Nowrangroy Metals Private Limited have also been brought on record. 52. Though the Respondents in their affidavit have questioned the completion of the sale of the commodity at Gorakhpur, U.P., contending absence of any undertaking in that regard in the said railway receipt and revelation to the contrary made in enquiries by the officers of the Board and the Marketing Committee, in view of categorical assertion of the Petitioner based on the aforementioned documents, we are of the view that the collection of cess on the consignments carried in the trucks AMZ 391 and AS25 7327 has been in violation of the determination made by the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008 in this regard. Not only in our view, a conjoint reading of the sale invoices, the railway receipt with the endorsements referred to hereinabove in favour of M/s Nowrangroy Metals Private Limited and the document of insurance unambiguously establish completion of transaction of sale/purchase at Gorakhpur, U.P. a bare perusal of the returns in Form M discloses that the same had not been furnished or allowed to be furnished by the said firm and instead were filled up by the Assistant Marketing Inspector, Changsari under GSMC, Upahali, Kamrup. In the face of Section 74 of the Railways Act, 1989, which permit endorsement of a railway receipt ensuing transfer of title of goods covered thereby in favour of the endorsee, the payment of central sales tax on the produce as evidenced by the sale invoice and the factum of insurance in favour of Nowrangroy Metals Private Limited, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the collection of cess on the consignment being carried in the aforementioned two truck/lorries after being unloaded from the railway wagons was impermissible under Section 21 of the Act. In the attendant facts and circumstances and in the light of the aforementioned documents, the fiction engrafted in Section 21 of the Act could not have been applied and, therefore, the levy and realisation of the cess has been in obvious violation of the said legal provision as well as Rule 21, 22 and 23 of the Rules and consequentially the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008. 53. As the controversy relating to transaction qua M/s NU Food Products is the subject matter of adjudication in WP (C) 4575 of 2008, we consider it expedient not to deal with the same in the instant proceeding. 54. Having regard to the competing pleadings and in absence of any document furnished by the Petitioner to reinforce its imputation of willful and deliberate violation of the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008 vis-a-vis M/s Gopal Bhandar, we refrain from making any observation in this regard on this transaction. 55. Judged by the above determination, in the comprehension of this Court, the levy and collection of cess on the consignments of M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills and M/s Nowrangroy Metals Pvt. Limited in particular as noted hereinabove has been in violation of the Act and the Rules as well as the manifest directives in the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008. These infractions viewed in the backdrop of the reply dated 30.9.2008 of the Chief Executive Officer of the Board and the news item dated 6.10.2008 referred to hereinabove which sought to exude absence of any restriction whatsoever imposed by this Court on the collection of such cess under Section 21, disclose a pre-determined mind of the Respondents in this regard. These infractions viewed in the backdrop of the reply dated 30.9.2008 of the Chief Executive Officer of the Board and the news item dated 6.10.2008 referred to hereinabove which sought to exude absence of any restriction whatsoever imposed by this Court on the collection of such cess under Section 21, disclose a pre-determined mind of the Respondents in this regard. Even if the legal fiction ensconced in the Explanation to Section 21 of the Act is permitted a full play, when pitched against the interpretation rendered by this Court, delivery of the agricultural produce per se in any notified market area in isolation and in absence of or disregard to the other transactional adjuncts would not permit levy and/or realisation of cess. The Respondents in charge of enforcing the provisions of the Act and the Rules and more particularly entrusted with the duty to ensure evasion of payment of cess are assuredly expected to be meticulously cognizant of the purport thereof and the expanse of their authority thereunder. Thus the plea that delivery ipso facto was construed to be an event permissive of levy and exaction of cess by applying the legal fiction cannot be sustained in any view of the matter. Having regard to the concatenation of the pre-requisites detailed in the Explanation, the factum of delivery proprio vigore would not activate the legal fiction to validate levy and collection of cess thereunder. The provision for refund under the Rules and the subsistence of the Committee in terms of the judgment and order of this Court as well can neither justify nor legalise any levy and realisation of such impost, if made, in violation of Section 21 or any other provision of the Act or the Rules. In our estimate, omission to challenge such levy and realisation of cess in any forum cannot be regarded as valid defence either against the charge of willful violation as leveled. 56. In our estimate, omission to challenge such levy and realisation of cess in any forum cannot be regarded as valid defence either against the charge of willful violation as leveled. 56. The documents relatable to the instances of such levy and collection of cess involving M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills and M/s Nowrangroy Metals Private Ltd. are redolent of the fact that the firms involved had not submitted the returns in Form M as required under the Rules and that the said documents were filled up by the officers of the Board at the spot and receipts in Form K were issued by them on the basis of the computation of the levy and the exaction thereof. There is no complaint as such on behalf of the Respondents imputing failure on the part of any of the firms to submit returns in Form M as well as assertion of action taken against them for such default as permissible under Rule 23. The quantification of the cess and the collection thereof therefore is not in accordance with the letter and spirit of Rule 21, 22 and 23 as well. 57. True it is that this Court in interpreting the legal fiction did not and could not have exhaustively spelt out all foreseeable and unforeseeable eventualities attendant on the completion of a transaction of sale or purchase as the case may be in precise details. It did, however, in categorical and unambiguous terms propound that the application of the fictional factors would be permissible in absence of direct evidence of completion of such transactions to the contrary. The approach of the Respondents in justifying the levy and realisation of cess atleast in the two instances referred to above involving M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills and M/s Nowrangroy when viewed in the framework of the decision of this Court in this regard cannot be approved by any standard. The decisions of the Apex Court in British India Corporation Ltd., supra, and Agricultural Produce Market Committee, supra, are of no avail to the Respondents. The decisions of the Apex Court in British India Corporation Ltd., supra, and Agricultural Produce Market Committee, supra, are of no avail to the Respondents. Whereas in British India Corporation Ltd., supra, the facts reveal that the transaction involved, having regard to the stipulations in the contract between the parties was to be completed on the delivery of the consignment, scouring of a sample thereof and determination of the final weight, market fee whereupon on the application of the legal fiction contained in Rule 20(7) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962, was permissible, in Agricultural Market Committee, supra, Rule 74(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Rules, 1969, and Bye Law 24(5) framed thereunder were held to be ultra vires the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, the delegated legislations having outreached the legislative policy delineated by the Act. In the contextual facts, the Apex Court being satisfied that the subject matter of sale were ascertained goods and were also in a deliverable state and further that the terms of the contract between the parties revealed that the seller would not be liable for any future loss thereof on transit, rejected the factum of weighment of the goods at the place of delivery or collection of documents from the Bank thereat or payment of price as immaterial to justify the levy. Their Lordships also taking note of the fact that the purchaser had insured the goods on transit, held that the property had passed on to the purchaser at Kerala where-from the same had been despatched and that it was not contingent upon the payment of the price therefore or the delivery thereof at Hyderabad. These decisions are conspicuously distinguishable as facts and propositions enunciated have no application in the present case. 58. The order sheet of the present proceeding discloses that notices had been issued on 14.11.2008 on the Respondent No. 1, 2, 3 and 8. On being served therewith these Respondents have submitted their affidavits in opposition, which have been duly replied to by the Petitioner. Noticeably the answering Respondents have in their counters sought to justify the levy and realisation of cess and/or the steps taken by the concerned officers in general. On being served therewith these Respondents have submitted their affidavits in opposition, which have been duly replied to by the Petitioner. Noticeably the answering Respondents have in their counters sought to justify the levy and realisation of cess and/or the steps taken by the concerned officers in general. Their stand in their affidavit are based on their knowledge and relevant in formations from the related official records and thus does not as such admit of any scope of any additional plea on behalf of the other Respondents. In other words, the affidavits filed by the Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 8 are adequately representative in character and comprehensively encompass all possible assertions of defence by the Respondents on record. Having regard to such detailed and all inclusive affidavit on behalf of Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 8, we are of the unhesitant opinion that this adjudication ought not to be limited to the answering Respondents alone but to the other Respondents on record as well. Moreover the returns in Form M and the receipts in Form K relating to the consignments of M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills and M/s Nowrangroy Metals Pvt. Ltd. prove unerringly the steps taken by Respondent No. 5, 6 and 7 in effecting the offending levy and exacting the cess. However, as no notice had been formally issued to the Respondents No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 and therefore they could not avail an opportunity to plead their defence individually, we feel inclined, on the consideration of fairness in action to restrict the proposed penalty to the Respondent No. 1, 2, 3 and 8 only. 59. In the face of the determination made herein above, we are of the considered opinion that the Respondents have willfully and consciously disobeyed the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008 passed by this Court and that the same has substantially interfered with the due course of justice. The justifications offered by the Respondents, as analysed hereinabove are per se not acceptable as a defence of the actions taken by them for levy and collection of cess from the consignments of M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills and M/s Nowrangroy Metals Pvt. Ltd., as narrated in the contempt petition. The justifications offered by the Respondents, as analysed hereinabove are per se not acceptable as a defence of the actions taken by them for levy and collection of cess from the consignments of M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills and M/s Nowrangroy Metals Pvt. Ltd., as narrated in the contempt petition. In the attendant facts and circumstances, the charge of deliberate and willful violation of the above judgment and order of this Court has been established beyond reasonable doubt and no benefit of any bonafide mistake in interpretation thereof or unintentional error is extendable to them. 60. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Respondents are guilty of civil contempt and that having regard to the litigational background and the obvious and unambiguous determination made by this Court in its judgment and order dated 12.9.2008 with regard to the legal fiction, we are of the view that fine alone would not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary to uphold the rule of Law and the confidence of the public in general in judicial institutions and the justice administration system. The Respondents by their acts and deeds as above have not only undermined the sanctity of the judgment and order of this Court but also have also conducted themselves in deliberate defiance and disregard thereof. The apology offered by the Respondents in the above factual conspectus is not construed to be bonafide and is thus unacceptable. 61. Having regard to the fact that the incidents pertaining to M/s Mayur Roller Flour Mills and M/s Nowrangroy Metals Private Ltd., had occurred on 20.10.2008 and 25.10.2008, the plea of Respondent No. 1 and 2 of having vacated the office of the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer of the Board on 20.1.2009 and 23.10.2008 cannot absolve them of their liability for the contempt of this Court. 62. On a totality of the considerations as narrated hereinabove, we are of the view that the Respondent No. 1, 2, 3 and 8 herein are each liable to be punished with simple imprisonment for two weeks and fine of Rs. 50,000/- Consequentially they are ordered to be detained in civil prison for the said period to serve the corporal punishment. The Registry would take immediate steps to ensure the implementation of this order forthwith. The contempt petition stands disposed in the above terms.