Judgment : A 75 year old widow has been struggling for getting her name incorporated in the municipal records. Her deceased husband secured a civil court decree on 06-08-1992 in O.S.No.26 of 1992 from the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Anakapalli, declaring him as the rightful owner of a house property and a consequential permanent injunction against the Anakapalli Municipality. Later, the petitioner also obtained a decree for mandatory injunction against the Municipality to incorporate her name in the municipal records in O.S.No.365 of 1995, dated 08-11-2011 from the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli. 2. Justice still eluded her. The respondents though lost in the courts have successfully succeeded in thwarting the decrees with impunity. Hapless petitioner approached this Court and obtained a Mandamus on 21.01.2010 to respect the decree. Respondents are still unmoved and have adopted a defiant attitude. Situation therefore warranted the petitioner to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Facts in a nutshell. 4. Petitioner’s husband, who served as Medical Officer in Anakapalli Municipality, was allotted a house bearing D.No.4-10-41/1 under a hire purchase scheme. He was retired from service in the year 1987. He had cleared all hire purchase installments payable to the Municipality even before his death i.e., on 13.02.1993. Since a dispute had arisen, he filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 1991 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Anakapalli and the same was decreed on 6.08.1992 declaring him as owner of the said property and consequential permanent injunction, in the following terms. 1. Declaring that the plaintiff is the rightful owner to the schedule property in consequent of the allotment made by the defendant; 2. That the defendant and his men and servants are permanently restrained from ever dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property; and 3. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1446/- towards costs of the suit. 5. After the death of the petitioner’s husband, the municipality was deducting an amount of Rs.290/-towards hire purchase charges from the family pension. The petitioner therefore filed O.S.No.265 of 1995 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,440/-being the amount collected from her pension, and for permanent injunction from deducting any amount form her pension and to mutate her name in the municipal records in respect of the said property. The petitioner therefore filed O.S.No.265 of 1995 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,440/-being the amount collected from her pension, and for permanent injunction from deducting any amount form her pension and to mutate her name in the municipal records in respect of the said property. The suit was decreed partly on 8.11.2001 in the following terms. 1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed partly by issuing mandatory injunction directing the defendant to effect mutation in the revenue records in respect of schedule property in the name of plaintiff as owner of the schedule property and by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men and servants from deducting the amount of Rs.290/- or any other amount from the pension of plaintiff in respect of schedule property from the date of filing of the suit by way of rent or damages and the suit claim is dismissed with regard to recovery of Rs.10,440/- from the defendant which was collected from the pension of plaintiff; and 2. That each party do bear their own costs. 6. By virtue of the aforesaid decrees not only the ownership right of the petitioner has been declared but also there is a mandatory direction to mutate the concerned records in her name. The aforesaid decrees have attained finality. 7. The respondents failed to carryout the decrees though a duty was cast upon them. They did not mutate the petitioner’s name for no valid reason. The petitioner therefore invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and obtained a writ of Mandamus in W.P.No.12820 of 2005, dated 21-01-2010 in the following terms. “In view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that once Anakapalli Municipality – respondent No.1 is a party to the decree in O.S.No.265 of 1995, dated 08.11.2001, the decree passed by the civil Court is binding on them and they shall implement the same by mutating name of the petitioner in the records against the house property bearing D.No.4-10-41/1, Gandhi Nagar, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. Therefore the writ petition is allowed directing respondent No.1 to comply with the decree passed by the civil Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a coy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.” 8. Therefore the writ petition is allowed directing respondent No.1 to comply with the decree passed by the civil Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a coy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.” 8. Even the aforesaid order has become final. 9. The respondents did not show inclination to implement the writ of this Court. The petitioner therefore got issued a legal notice dated 10.03.2010 requesting the 1st respondent, who was the then Commissioner, Anakapalli Municipality to do the needful in accordance with the orders in the writ petition. There was no reaction on the part of the 1st respondent. The petitioner having no other option has moved this contempt case. 10. Contempt jurisdiction is sparingly exercised by the Courts because it is an extraordinary jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is invoked usually not with the object of punishing a contemnor, but for protecting the dignity and authority of the Court. 11. Obedience of the orders of the Courts is foremost and sacred for maintenance of rule of law. Disobedience of the orders strikes at the very roots of rule of law and shakes the foundation on which the judicial system rests. Tolerance to disobedience is not in the interest of the judicial system because it will lose the confidence of those who have succeeded in the Courts. 12. The instant case is a classic example wherein the respondents have successfully frustrated not only the decree of a civil Court but also a writ issued by this Court. Their disobedience is deliberate, which is writ large as would be noticed hereinafter. 13. It is already noticed that the respondents have not mutated the name of the petitioner in the concerned records as per the orders of this Court. The contempt case was first listed before this Court on 20.08.2010. Sri S. Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel took notice on behalf of respondent No.1, who was impleaded as the sole respondent at that time. On his request, this Court granted four weeks time for filing counter. Afterwards, the matter was listed on 29.03.2011. As no counter had been filed and there was no compliance of the orders by then, this Court admitted the contempt case and directed to issue Form-1 notice to respondent No.1. 14. On his request, this Court granted four weeks time for filing counter. Afterwards, the matter was listed on 29.03.2011. As no counter had been filed and there was no compliance of the orders by then, this Court admitted the contempt case and directed to issue Form-1 notice to respondent No.1. 14. The 1st respondent appeared before this Court on 26.04.2011 and an assurance was given on his behalf by the learned Standing Counsel that the order would be complied within 8 weeks time. Placing the said assurance on record, the matter was adjourned by 8 weeks and future appearance of the 1st respondent was dispensed with. The matter was listed on 23.06.2011. There was no compliance. On an undertaking that the order would be complied within two weeks, the matter was adjourned by two weeks. Time was further extended finally by two more weeks on 8.07.2011. The matter was listed on 22.07.2011 and as none appeared it was adjourned by two more weeks. There was no compliance despite adjourning the matter. Hence, this Court again issued Form-1 notice on 5.08.2011. The 1st respondent did not appear before this Court taking advantage of non-service of notice. Therefore on 19.09.2011 it was directed the Standing Counsel should ensure the presence of the 1st respondent and posted the matter to 26.09.2011. The matter was listed on 27.09.2011 and was posted after vacation since it was represented that the Standing counsel was unwell. Accordingly, the matter was listed on 14.10.2011. The learned Standing Counsel represented that the 1st respondent was not available and it was not known to him at which place he was working. This Court therefore issued non-bailable warrant. The matter underwent adjournments on 14.11.2011, 28.11.2011 and 2.11.2011 awaiting execution of warrant. Therefore, the 1st respondent was produced on 2.12.2011 under a warrant and on 3.12.2011 he was directed to be released on executing personal bond. The matter was adjourned by two more weeks. An adjournment was granted at the request of the learned Standing Counsel on 19.12.2011 and the matter has been coming up since then. 15. As can be seen from the above, even after the contempt case was moved on 20-08-2010, sufficient indulgence was shown to respondent No.1 hoping that he would implement the orders. 16. But the 1st respondent is incorrigible. 15. As can be seen from the above, even after the contempt case was moved on 20-08-2010, sufficient indulgence was shown to respondent No.1 hoping that he would implement the orders. 16. But the 1st respondent is incorrigible. He has not implemented the orders in the Writ Petition and has breached his undertaking given to this Court in the Contempt Case. It is therefore evident that he has deliberately and consciously violated the orders of this Court. 17. The 1st respondent has filed counter affidavit taking untenable pleas. He does not show any remorse even now. He states that he has filed appeal challenging the orders in writ petition and has paid Rs.7,500/- towards fees to the Standing Counsel. That Writ Appeal is yet to be numbered. The purport of the counter is that though an undertaking was given to this Court in the contempt case on 26.04.2011, he is under no obligation to honour it without a resolution of the Municipal Council and the approval of the State Government. He states that he has taken legal opinion to this effect from his Standing Counsel on 27.04.2011. It is stated that he obtained the resolution from the Council on 20.05.2011 and has sent the proposal to the State Government for its approval. It is stated that he was then transferred and relieved on 24.06.2011 from Anakapalli Municipality. He states that he took prompt action and sent proposals to State Government. He also initiated disciplinary action against the concerned staff for not acting promptly for sending proposals to Government. He therefore pleads that after he was transferred from the municipality he is not under any obligation to implement the orders. 18. The aforesaid explanation is hardly sustainable. The order of this Court is clear, which has been passed taking into consideration the Civil Court decrees. There is absolutely no justification for a resolution of the Council or the approval of the Government. There is no such requirement under law. On the other hand, it is he who is responsible for effecting mutations as per Rule-5 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Assessment of Tax Rules, 1990. Even if it is presumed that a resolution is necessary, there is absolutely no justification for keeping the matter pending since 21-01-2010. The 1st Respondent did not even obtain extension of time from this Court, if it was really necessary. 19. Even if it is presumed that a resolution is necessary, there is absolutely no justification for keeping the matter pending since 21-01-2010. The 1st Respondent did not even obtain extension of time from this Court, if it was really necessary. 19. Admittedly the 1st respondent worked as Commissioner from 24.07.2009 to 24.06.2011 and was the incumbent through out the relevant period. It is worth to be noted, this Court passed orders in the writ petition on 21.01.2010 and the contempt was moved on 20.08.2010 on which date the learned Standing Counsel had taken notice on his behalf. Form-1 notice was issued on 29.03.2011. The first appearance of respondent No.1 was on 26.04.2011 on which date an assurance was given that the order would be implemented in eight weeks. Thus it was he who was the incumbent and it was his responsibility to implement the orders. Therefore, his subsequent transfer is neither relevant nor can be successfully pleaded for an excuse. 20. Coming to the 3rd respondent, he was impleaded with the leave of this Court on 8.02.2012. Sri M. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Standing counsel took notice on his behalf and the matter was adjourned by two more weeks at his request. 21. The matter was listed on 13.02.2012. Smt. Shanthi Neelam, Advocate, appeared and requested for time, on the ground that she was appointed as Standing Counsel recently. Accordingly the matter was adjourned to 23.02.2012. After the adjournment, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 15.02.2012 calling upon the petitioner to pay certain amount purportedly towards arrears as a condition to effect mutation. At no point of time earlier, this stand was taken. As the said order prima facie was not bona fide, this Court directed that if the order of this Court dated 21.01.2010 is not implemented on or before 28.02.2012 the respondents should appear on 29.02.2012. The 3rd respondent did not comply with the orders even by the said date. It was therefore directed that both the contemnors should be present on 01.03.2012. 22. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter. The stand taken by him shows that he too is not willing to obey the orders of this Court. The 3rd respondent did not comply with the orders even by the said date. It was therefore directed that both the contemnors should be present on 01.03.2012. 22. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter. The stand taken by him shows that he too is not willing to obey the orders of this Court. He too has referred to the letter dated 26.05.2011 addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government, MA & UD (E2) Department, for instructions in connection with the matter and the resolution of the council dated 26.05.2011 and stated that information is also awaited from the Director of Municipal Administration and that suitable action would be taken as and when the instructions are received from the Government. 23. The stand taken by the 3rd respondent as to the alleged arrears is not tenable as is evident from the decree in O.S.No.365 of 1995 dated 8.11.2001. The 3rd respondent conceded that the Civil Court decrees and the order of this Court have attained finality. Therefore, he is bound to implement the same. He is not justified in seeking orders of the Government or whoever it be. 24. An order passed by a Court is sacrosanct and should be implemented. Implementation of an order cannot be refused under any pretext, so long as it remains in force and is not eclipsed or set aside in the hierarchy of remedies. Even if there is some difficulty in implementing the order, parties should approach the Court for appropriate clarifications. Otherwise, it would amount to disobedience to the Court. 25. InManinderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India and others ( (2012) 1 SCC 273 )the Apex Court while considering the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has taken the following view that : (i) Every party lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to obey the orders of the court in its true spirit and substance. (ii) Government Departments are no exception to it. (iii) State or its instrumentalities must act expeditiously as per orders of the court – and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. (iv) If there are any difficulties in compliance, parties should approach the Court for appropriate orders. (v) If a party failed to do so, it would be flagrant violation of orders. (iii) State or its instrumentalities must act expeditiously as per orders of the court – and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. (iv) If there are any difficulties in compliance, parties should approach the Court for appropriate orders. (v) If a party failed to do so, it would be flagrant violation of orders. The relevant para of the Judgment is : “Para 20 : “In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are primarily concerned with enquiring whether the contemnor is guilty of intentional and willful violation of the orders of the Court, even to constitute a civil contempt. Every party to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to obey the orders of the court in its true spirit and substance. Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The government departments are no exception to it. The departments or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per orders of the court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court, least that is expected of the government department or its functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time or clarifications, if called for. But, where the party neither obeys the orders of the court nor approaches the court making appropriate prayers for extension of time or variation of order, the only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the orders of the court. In other words, it is intentionally not carrying out the orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the court’s orders would reflect the attitude of the party concerned to undermine the authority of the courts, its dignity and the administration of justice. Para21 : In Vinay Chandra Mishra, In re ( (1995) 2 SCC 584 ), this Court held that; (SCC p.617, para 39) “39….judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform viz., to oversee that all individuals and institutions including the executive and the legislature act within the framework of not only the law but also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to peaceful and orderly development of the society…… dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.” The Court further held that some cases may reflect open violation and in some other cases, it may be dormant or passive, but still render a person liable for an action of contempt. Para 22 to the extent relevant is as follows : “As such, even in cases where no positive/active role is directly attributable to a person, still, his passive and dormant attitude of inaction may result in violation of the orders of the court and may render him liable for an action of contempt.” It is further held : “Para 24 : With reference to government officers, this Court in E.T. Sunup v. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Assn. ((2004) 8SCC 683)took the view that it has become a tendency with the government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of the court by taking recourse to one justification or the other even if ex facie they are unsustainable. The tendency of undermining the court orders cannot be countenanced.” “Para 25 : Deprecating the practice of undue delay in compliance with the orders of the Court, this Court again in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India ( (2001) 5 SCC 309 )observed: (SCC p. 311, paras 8-9)” “… clear lapse on the part of NCT and Municipal Corporation. Even if there was no deliberate or willful disregard for the court orders, there has clearly been a lackadaisical attitude and approach towards then. Though no further action in this matter need be taken for now, but such lethargic attitude if continues may soon become contumacious.” Taking a serious view, the Court further held : “Para 26 : It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs (refer T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (102) v. Ashok Khot, (2006) 5 SCC 1 ), SCC p. 6, para 5). The proceedings before the highest court of the land in a public interest litigation, attain even more significance. These are the cases which come up for hearing before the court on a grievance raised by the public at large or public-spirited persons. The State itself places matters before the Court for determination which would fall, statutorily or otherwise, in the domain of the executive authority.” “Para 28 : For execution of the orders of the court even committal for an indefinite term has been accepted under Australian law (Australasian Meat Industry Employees” Union v. Mudginberri Station (Pty) Ltd. ((1986) 161 CLR 98 (Aust))] and American law, though this is no longer permissible under English law. While referring to detention of a person for a long period to ensure execution of the orders in Nevitt, In re (117 F 448 (1902)), F at p. 461, Sanborn, J. observed that the person subjected to such a term “carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket”. The Court thus held : “Para 29 : Lethargy, ignorance, official delays and absence of motiveaction can hardly be offered as any defence in an action for contempt. Inordinate delay in complying with the orders of the courts has also received judicial criticism. It is inappropriate for the parties concerned to keep the execution of the court’s orders in abeyance for an inordinate period. Inaction or even dormant behaviour by the officers in the highest echelons in the hierarchy of certainly amounts to disobedience. Inordinate delay of years in complying with the orders of the court or in complying with the directed stipulations within the prescribed time, has been viewed by this Court seriously and held to be the contempt of court, as it undermines the dignity of the court. Inordinate delay of years in complying with the orders of the court or in complying with the directed stipulations within the prescribed time, has been viewed by this Court seriously and held to be the contempt of court, as it undermines the dignity of the court. Reference in this regard can be made to Maniyeri Madhavan v. Inspector of Police (1993 Supp (2) SCC 501 : 1`993 SCC (Cri) 696 : AIR 1993 SC 356 ) and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh ( (2002) 4 SCC 21 ). Even a lackadaisical attitude, which itself may not be deliberate or willful, have not been held to be a sufficient ground of defence in a contempt proceeding. Obviously, the purpose is to ensure compliance with the orders of the court at the earliest and within stipulated period.” 26. Applying the aforesaid principles to the instant case, the conduct of both the contemnors in not implementing the orders of this Court, are squarely and unambiguously contemptuous. The respondents have consciously and deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court so also the Civil Court decree. The respondents have not mended themselves in spite of indulgence shown to them even after initiating the contempt proceedings. 27. Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prescribes that this Court may punish the contemnor with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. Though discretion is available to this Court to impose fine, in the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the incorrigible attitude of the respondents in spite of the undertaking given to this Court from time to time and ultimately treating the orders of this Court subservient to the orders of the State Government, I am not inclined to let them off only with fine. I am convinced that by violating the orders, both the respondents 1 and 3 have substantially prevented administration of justice, besides causing irreparable agony and damage to the petitioner; thus they deserve imprisonment. 28. For the reasons as above, respondents 1 and 3 are held guilty of the contempt of this Court and are accordingly sentenced to undergo detention in civil prison for one month. Their subsistence allowance is fixed at Rs.300/- each per day which shall be borne by the State. 29. The Contempt Case is accordingly allowed. 30. 28. For the reasons as above, respondents 1 and 3 are held guilty of the contempt of this Court and are accordingly sentenced to undergo detention in civil prison for one month. Their subsistence allowance is fixed at Rs.300/- each per day which shall be borne by the State. 29. The Contempt Case is accordingly allowed. 30. Though an oral request is made for suspension of this order, I am not inclined to accept the said request in view of the gravity of the contempt committed by respondent Nos.1 and 3. The oral request is accordingly rejected.