Judgment 1. The petitioner filed W.P.(md).No.12973 of 2013 before this Court seeking a mandamus to the respondents to shift the TASMAC shop No.9905 from Door Nos.23 and 23-A at Muthandapuram, 2nd Street, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District on the ground that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing door Nos.20 and 21 at Muthandapuram, 2nd Street, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District, wherein, the Tamil Nadu Open University Study Centre is run imparting education to hundreds of students. Alleging that the location of TASMAC shop is a nuisance and the same violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner, he filed this writ petition. After having heard the learned counsel on either side, this Court by order dated 13.11.2013, allowed the writ petition and passed the following direction: “In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to close the TASMAC shop No.9905 at Door No.23 and 23A at Muthandapuram, 2nd Street, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District within a period of seven days from today, however, with liberty to the respondents to shift the same and to relocate the same elsewhere, to a far off place, which will not cause any nuisance or inconvenience to the general public.” 2. Alleging that the said direction has not been complied with, the petitioner filed this contempt petition on 10.09.2014 and that is how, the same is before me for disposal. 3. The first contemnor is not present before this Court. He has filed Sub.A.(MD).No.172 of 2014 to dispense with his personal appearance stating that he being the District Collector is busy today involving in the counting of local body election votes. Sub.A(MD).No.172 of 2014 is therefore allowed accepting the said explanation and his personal appearance is dispensed with. 4. The second contemnor is present before this Court. He is represented by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the TASMAC. He would submit that as against the order of this Court dated 13.11.2013, an appeal was preferred by the respondents herein in W.A.(MD).No.1247 of 2013. It is stated that during the pendency of the said writ appeal, an order of Stay was granted, thereby staying the operation of the order dated 13.11.2013. In view of the order of stay passed by the Division Bench, the TASMAC shop was not closed. Finally, the said appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 17.02.2014 itself. It is stated that during the pendency of the said writ appeal, an order of Stay was granted, thereby staying the operation of the order dated 13.11.2013. In view of the order of stay passed by the Division Bench, the TASMAC shop was not closed. Finally, the said appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 17.02.2014 itself. Thereafter, the respondent filed a review petition in Rev.Appln.(md).No.33 of 2014, which was also dismissed as early as on 23.06.2014. 5. Today, it is brought to my notice that the first respondent by the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3/44107/13 dated 16.09.2014 has issued a direction to the 2nd respondent to close the shop as directed by this Court. It is also brought to my notice that in pursuance of the said order, the second respondent has issued a proceedings in Na.Ka.A4/1120/2013, dated 16.09.2014, closing the said shop. Thus, according to the second respondent, the order has been complied with. 6. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and I have perused the records carefully. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though it may be true that the shop was closed on 16.09.2014, there is no explanation as to why the order has not been complied with for such a long time that too, even after the dismissal of the review petition on 23.06.2014. The contempt petition was filed only on 10.09.2014, after the dismissal of the review petition. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the respondents have no explanation to offer in respect of the same and thus, disobedience is deliberate. The learned counsel thus submitted that for the contempt of the Court committed by the respondents, they should be punished. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent has filed an affidavit in support of the Sub.A.(MD).No.172 of 2014, wherein, he has tendered his unconditional apology. 10. I find that the said unconditional apology is sincere and satisfaction to the Court and therefore, I am inclined to discharge the first respondent. 11. So far as the second respondent is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent has also tendered his unconditional apology orally. 12. I find that the said unconditional apology is not sincere and the same will not exonerate the second respondent. 11. So far as the second respondent is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent has also tendered his unconditional apology orally. 12. I find that the said unconditional apology is not sincere and the same will not exonerate the second respondent. The reasons are many. 13. As I have already pointed out the order of this Court is dated 13.11.2013. The order was to close the shop within seven days. The second respondent did not explain as to why the shop was not closed within seven days as directed. He has an excuse that there was an order of stay by the Division Bench. But, that writ appeal was dismissed as early as on 17.02.2014. Even thereafter, the shop was not closed. Then the second respondent had filed a review petition and that review petition was also dismissed on 23.06.2014 by the Division Bench. Even thereafter, the shop was not closed. The contempt petition was filed on 10.09.2014 and after receipt of notice in the contempt petition only, the shop was closed. All these facts would go to show that the second respondent has committed a clear contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and therefore, he is liable to be punished for the same. This Court, accordingly, holds him guilty under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 14. When the second respondent was questioned in respect of the quantum of punishment to be imposed on him under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, he would submit that hereafter, he will obey any order to be passed by any Court. 15. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the contempt committed by the respondent also, I am inclined to impose a sentence of imprisonment till raising of the Court i.e. till 4.45 p.m. today (for one day) and also I direct him to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to be paid to the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks from today and I further direct that in the event the petitioner commits default to pay the fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week. 22.09.2014 Further order passed at 4.45 P.M As per the order passed by this Court, the second respondent/contemnor has undergone the sentence till the raising of the Court upto 4.45 p.m. He is set at liberty. It is recorded that he has not sofar paid the fine amount. If he fails to pay the fine amount on or before 6.10.2014, he shall appear before this Court at 10.30 A.M on 06.10.2014 to undergo the default sentence. 16. In view of the above, this contempt petition is closed.