JUDGMENT :- N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. This Contempt Petition is filed for the wilful disobedience of the order made in W.P.(MD)No.835 of 2008 dated 01.02.2008. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she filed the above writ petition, questioning the demolition notice issued on 14.01.2008 by the respondent. The said writ petition was disposed of after hearing the learned counsel appeared for the respondent and Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order read as follows:- "4. We have considered the argument of the counsel for both sides and perused the records placed. It is seen from the impugned communication that the respondent called upon the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachments, within a period of seven days. Admittedly, before issuing the impugned communication, no other notice was issued by the respondent. Hence, we are of the view that sufficient opportunity has to be granted to the petitioner to submit his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to treat the impugned communication dated 14.01.2008 as a show cause notice and submit his explanation, if any, within a period of four weeks from today and on receipt of the same, the respondent is directed to consider it and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eighteen weeks thereafter. It is needless to mention that till the disposal of petitioner's explanation, the respondent shall not disturb the petitioner's possession. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 3. The said order was passed on 01.02.2008, granting liberty to the parties to treat the notice dated 14.01.2008 as a show cause notice and the petitioner was permitted to submit her explanation within a period of four weeks from 01.02.2008 and on receipt of the same, the respondent was directed to consider and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of eighteen weeks thereafter and till the disposal of the petitioner's explanation, the respondent shall not disturb the petitioner's possession. 4. The effect of the said order is that only after getting explanation from the petitioner submitted within a period of four weeks from 01.02.2008, the respondent shall pass orders within a period of eighteen weeks thereafter and till fresh orders are passed, the possession of the petitioner cannot be disturbed. The said order was intimated to the respondent by telegram. 5. The said order was intimated to the respondent by telegram. 5. According to the petitioner, on 07.02.2008, the subject building was demolished at 05.00 p.m., and the same is in violation of the Court order. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition that the nature of the order passed by this Court was also informed to the respondent through the learned counsel at about 04.35 p.m., i.e., before the demolition. Pointing out the above violation of the Court Order, the petitioner filed this Contempt Petition on 13.06.2008. 6. This Court, taking note of the said demolition, by order dated 28.08.2008, after having satisfied with the report filed by the petitioner, drawn by a qualified Engineer, showing the estimated damage caused to her house was an extent of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs only), directed the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) within a period of two weeks from 28.08.2008, and on such deposit being made by the respondent, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the same. 7. The said order of the Division Bench dated 28.08.2008 was challenged by the respondent in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.23801 of 2008 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.10.2008, stating that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Division Bench dated 28.08.2008. 8. On 04.12.2008, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted before this Court that he was having a demand draft bearing No.376955 dated 02.12.2008 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) drawn in favour of the Registrar and this Court may pass a suitable order, giving direction to deposit the amount. This Court directed the respondent / Contemnor to deposit the amount to the credit of Contempt Petition (MD)No.231 of 2008 with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. In respect of the permission, allowing the contempt petitioner to withdraw the amount, the Division Bench modified the same to the effect that the deposit should not be allowed to be withdrawn till it is decided as to whether in Contempt Petition, damages could be granted. Pursuant to that, deposit was made before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. 9. In respect of the permission, allowing the contempt petitioner to withdraw the amount, the Division Bench modified the same to the effect that the deposit should not be allowed to be withdrawn till it is decided as to whether in Contempt Petition, damages could be granted. Pursuant to that, deposit was made before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the respondent / contemnor having violated the order of this Court and caused loss to the petitioner is bound to compensate the petitioner for the demolition of the building, which was carried out illegally i.e., in violation of the order. The learned counsel also submitted that the damages payable was quantified and the said order becomes final. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent / contemnor, by relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the respondent submitted that only on 08.02.2008, after receiving a communication from the counsel, the respondent came to know about the order of this Court dated 01.02.2008 and the communication sent by the counsel by post informing the order has not reached before the demolition. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the said order of this Court dated 01.02.2008 was also not brought to the knowledge of the respondent by the petitioner. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the earlier order. 12. The order dated 01.02.2008, was admittedly passed by this Court in the presence of the counsel, who appeared for the respondent / contemnor. Thus, the respondent cannot plead about the ignorance of the said order. Knowledge of the order to the counsel is the knowledge to the party. The party, having engaged a counsel, and the counsel having appeared before the Court as an authorized representative / agent and the order having been passed in the presence of the counsel, the respondent is not justified in pleading that he has no knowledge. Thus, we are satisfied that the respondent was aware of the order passed on 01.02.2008 and wilfully violated the said order. 13. It is relevant to point out at this juncture that an order passed by a competent Court is bound to be obeyed / implemented by all concerned including government officials to uphold the Rule of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2012 (1) S.C.C. 273 (MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA VS. 13. It is relevant to point out at this juncture that an order passed by a competent Court is bound to be obeyed / implemented by all concerned including government officials to uphold the Rule of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2012 (1) S.C.C. 273 (MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS) explained under what circumstances, contempt proceedings can be initiated. In Paragraph 29, it is held thus:- "29. Lethargy, ignorance, official delays and absence of motivation 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 the Government in complying with the direction / orders of this Court certainly amounts to disobedience ." 14. In the decision reported in 2002 (4) S.C.C. 21 (ANIL RATAN SARKAR VS. KIRAK GHOSH), it was held that even a lackadaisical attitude which itself may not be deliberate or wilful have not been held to be a sufficient ground of defence in a contempt proceedings. In the judgment reported in 2012 (1) S.C.C. 273 (cited supra) in Paragraph 26, it is further held thus:-"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 judicial 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 THIRUMALPAD VS. ASHOK KHOT ( 2006 (5) S.C.C. 1 )). " 15. It is also a fact that that order was passed on 01.02.2008 and the demolition was made on 07.02.2008 at 05.00 p.m. Therefore, the contentions raised in the counter affidavit that the respondent has no knowledge about the order of this Court dated 01.02.2008 is highly imaginary. ASHOK KHOT ( 2006 (5) S.C.C. 1 )). " 15. It is also a fact that that order was passed on 01.02.2008 and the demolition was made on 07.02.2008 at 05.00 p.m. Therefore, the contentions raised in the counter affidavit that the respondent has no knowledge about the order of this Court dated 01.02.2008 is highly imaginary. Having regard to the fact that the order of this Court, having become final and the demolition having been taken place, admittedly when the prohibitory order was in force and the petitioner having sufficient loss and damages having been ascertained by this Court, against which a Special Leave to Appeal having been dismissed, there is no difficulty in fixing the compensation payable by the respondent. 16. In contempt matters, even if contempt is made out, instead of punishing the contemnor, damages can be awarded to the party, who suffered at the hands of the contemnor. The said issue is no more resintegra in view of the decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decisions. 17. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2010 (4) CTC 407 (G.Rajaram v. T.K.Rajendran, I.P.S.) in paragraphs 16 and 17 held thus, "16. The power of Court to entertain and consider the act of contempt of Court is two fold. The Court is empowered to proceed against a contemner for civil contempt as well as criminal contempt in terms of the provisions of Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act either with regard to the alleged disobedience of the Court's orders or in regard to the interference or obstruction to the administration of justice. Apart from the said power, this Court being a Court of record, is empowered to punish for contempt of itself in terms of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The High Courts are the superior Courts of record and they have inherent and plenary powers independent of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. The power of the High Court to punish for contempt can exclusively be based on Article 215 of the Constitution of India. As against the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act fixing a specified punishment, Article 215 does not restrict the power of the Court to impose the punishment which it considers to be appropriate and justifiable. As against the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act fixing a specified punishment, Article 215 does not restrict the power of the Court to impose the punishment which it considers to be appropriate and justifiable. Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, though the High Court is empowered to only impose the punishment of simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months and send the contemner to civil prison and impose a fine upto a maximum of Rs.2,000/-, under Article 215 of the Constitution, all that the High Court should consider as to whether the quantum of punishment and for that matter, the nature of the orders be it by way of cost or compensation, could meet the ends of justice. 17. The laws and rules governing contempt have developed overtime and given wide discretion to the Courts in determining both what constitutes contempt and how it should be dealt with. As against the imposition of punishment where the Court would consider the willful disobedience of the orders of the Court, while awarding costs or compensation, the Court must also consider the prejudice and hardship caused to the complainant due to the act of the contemner and such prejudice and hardship must be real and the interference in the administration of justice is substantial." (Emphasis Supplied) The said judgment was rendered following the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 3469 (M.C.Mehta v. Union of India) and (2008) 11 SCC 547 (Banwarlal v. G.Kalavathi). From the perusal of the above decision it is evident that as per Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of the High Court in a contempt proceeding is not restricted to impose punishment alone. The High Court is also empowered to consider as to whether any compensation could meet the ends of justice if prejudice and hardship is shown by the petitioner. In the said decision the Division Bench after giving a finding about the intentional violation of the Court order as well as the prejudice, hardships and mental agony faced by the petitioner, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh) as compensation. 18. In the said decision the Division Bench after giving a finding about the intentional violation of the Court order as well as the prejudice, hardships and mental agony faced by the petitioner, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh) as compensation. 18. As the respondent has violated the order on the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) as compensation, which was already ascertained and deposited by the contemnor together with accrued interest, if any. Necessary application is directed to be filed by the petitioner before the Registrar (Judicial) for withdrawal. 19. The Contempt Petition is allowed.