Judgment :- 1. This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner to punish the respondents for violating the interim order passed by this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2007 in W.P.No.15798 of 2007 dated 27.4.2007. 2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner and four others. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Lecturer in Micro-Biology Department in Pachaiyappa's College by order dated 10.7.1996 and in spite of serving for over 17 years, his services were not regularised. On 19.3.2012, petitioner's service was discontinued due to closure of the course. It is alleged in the affidavit that the said order is passed wilfully disobeying the interim order passed by this Court on 27.4.2007. 3. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit contending that the Management and Administration of the Board of Trustees of Pachaiyappa's College was vested with the Official Trustee and Administor General of Tamil Nadu, pursuant to the orders of this Court till the election of Board of Trustees, and election took place on 29.9.2009 and results were declared on 30.9.2009. The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis for each academic year in Self-financing course in the evening College. The association of Self-financing Teachers filed W.P.No.12469 of 2006 and the said writ petition is pending. Interim order sought for was not granted. Challenging the order of relieving the petitioner and four others dated 27.4.2007, W.P.No.15798 of 2007 was filed and an interim order of stay was granted on 27.4.2007. Vacate stay petition filed against the said order of interim stay is pending. 4. The service conditions of the Lecturers in Self-financing course are, their appointment is temporary from the commencement of the academic year till the end of the academic year; their appointment shall not confer any right of absorption against regular vacancy of day college; their salary will be on consolidated remuneration per month with work load of 16 hours per week; their appointment is purely temporary and liable for termination at any time; and, if an individual desires to leave the post, he can do so after giving one month prior notice, or on payment of one month salary. According to the respondents, the order dated 27.4.2007 was passed due to closure of academic year 2006-2007 with effect from 12.4.2007. 5. Due to the interim order passed, petitioner was paid consolidated salary till February, 2012. According to the respondents, the order dated 27.4.2007 was passed due to closure of academic year 2006-2007 with effect from 12.4.2007. 5. Due to the interim order passed, petitioner was paid consolidated salary till February, 2012. Out of the five writ petitioners, second and fourth petitioners relinguished their post in their respective department. Others have neither passed Ph.D degree nor passed UGC, NET, SLET examinations and they are not qualified to hold the post of Lecturer in Micro-Biology and the University of Madras by letter dated 3.12.2008 informed the management that qualified teachers should be appointed in the place of unqualified teachers in the department of Micro-Biology. For the past four years, admission in Self-financing courses are very less. The strength of the students came down from 30 to 10. As the said course are run by the fees collected from the students and due to the financial crunch and admission of few students, the management was not able to run the courses of Micro-Biology and M.A. Economics and suspended to conduct the courses. There was absolutely no demand from the students for Micro-Biology course both in UG and PG levels. Taking into consideration the financial viability, the management had to close the Self-financing courses with the end of academic year 2011-2012. According to the respondents due to the said reasons, the order dated 19.3.2012 was passed and there is no wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that so long as the interim order of stay granted by this Court is in force, the respondents are not entitled to pass the order relieving the petitioner from 12.4.2012, and therefore the order of this Court is violated. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that there is no wilful disobedience and order of this Court is fully complied with for about five years and the respondents have no intention to disobey the order of this Court and only due to financial viability, the management is unable to continue the course due to want of students for UG and PG courses in Micro-Biology subject and hence a bona fide decision was taken. 8. 8. The interim order granted on 27.4.2007 was obeyed by the respondent till the order dated 19.3.2012 and the petitioner was also paid salary and the petitioner has been paid salary even during pendency of this contempt petition. The petitioner having been appointed in a Self-financing Course and as the course could not be conducted due to want of strength in UG and PG level, the management decided to close the said courses and ordered to relieve the petitioner from 12.4.2012. On the above facts and circumstances, I am unable to find any wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court to proceed further against the respondents for committing the act of contempt. 9. It is well settled principle of law that if the action taken by the Contemnor are bona fide, without any intention to violate the order of the court, the said action cannot be treated as wilful disobedience as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Unless and until a wilful disobedience is proved, the proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act cannot be proceeded. The said principle is reiterated by the Supreme Court in the following decisions. 9. (a) In 2003 (11) SCC 1 (Ashok Paper Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Godha and Others), the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the concept of 'wilful disobedience' of an order of the Court. It was stated that 'wilful' means an act or omission which is done voluntarily 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. According to the Court, it signifies the act done with evil intent or with a bad motive for the purpose. It was observed that the act or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 9. (b) Again in 2007 (11) SCC 374 (All Bengal Excise Licensees Association vs. Raghabendra Singh and Others), the Supreme Court considered several cases and observed that wilful and deliberate act of violation of interim order passed by a competent Court would amount to contempt of Court. 10. 9. (b) Again in 2007 (11) SCC 374 (All Bengal Excise Licensees Association vs. Raghabendra Singh and Others), the Supreme Court considered several cases and observed that wilful and deliberate act of violation of interim order passed by a competent Court would amount to contempt of Court. 10. The above two decisions were followed again in the decision reported in AIR 2009 SC 2214 (C.Elumalai & Others vs. A.G.L.Irudayaraj and Another) and in paragraph-13, it is held that 'punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to take strict view, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt' 11. Applying the said principles to the facts of the case, I am of the view that the respondents have not wilfully violated the order of this Court to proceed against them under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 12. The contempt petition is dismissed. Connected sub applications are also dismissed.