JUDGMENT : S. K. SAHOO, J. The petitioner approached this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No.23532 of 2012 challenging the action of opposite parties for not including the First Post of English into the grant-in-aid fold as per Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 2008 and praying for a direction to the opposite parties to approve the post of English and to release Grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner. The writ application was disposed of vide order dated 10.04.2013. The relevant portion of the directions are quoted herein below :- “10.04.2013 xx xx xx 4. Considering the submissions as made above and without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the Director of Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2) within a period of two weeks hence. If such a representation is made, the opposite party no.2 shall do well to issue notice to the opposite party no.3 to produce the relevant records and extend opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other necessary party and ultimately decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of such representation. Needless to say that, while considering claim of the petitioner, the Director of Higher Education shall keep in mind, the principles/guidelines formulated by the State of Orissa for Women’s College, vis-à-vis Grant-in-aid. 5. The writ petition was disposed of with the aforesaid direction and observation”. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though in pursuance to the order dated 10.4.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.23532 of 2012, the petitioner submitted his representation before the opposite party on 24.4.2013 but no order was passed thereunder. The petitioner filed an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to know about the position of his representation and reply was furnished by the Br. PIO-cum-Dy. Director (NGC-II) that no action has been taken in the matter. Since the representation was not considered within the stipulated period of time as fixed by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2013, this contempt application has been filed. 3. Notice was issued to the contemnor-opposite party on 4.8.2014 asking him to explain as to why he shall not be punished under the contempt of Courts Act for flouting the order of this Court. 3. Notice was issued to the contemnor-opposite party on 4.8.2014 asking him to explain as to why he shall not be punished under the contempt of Courts Act for flouting the order of this Court. In pursuance to such notice, show cause was filed by the Director of Higher Education, Odisha indicating therein that after receiving the representation of the petitioner on 24.04.2013, the concerned record was duly processed and in obedience to the order dated 10.4.2013 of this Court, necessary communication was made on 2.8.2014 to the office of the Principal, Mohan Mahila Junior Mahavidhyalaya, Chandpur who was opposite party no.3 in W.P.(C) No.23532 of 2012 intimating the date of hearing as 20.08.2014 at 11.30 a.m. It was directed to the Principal to produce the relevant records/documents and it was also requested to the Principal to intimate the petitioner to attend the hearing on the said date. It is further stated in the show cause affidavit that in response to the letter dated 2.08.2014, the petitioner as well as the Principal of the said College appeared before the deponent on 20.08.2014 and participated in the process of hearing and the Principal also produced relevant documents before the deponent and after hearing the parties and perusing the materials on record diligently, the deponent passed a reasoned order on 28.08.2014 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The deponent further submitted in the show-cause affidavit that the delay caused in disposal of the representation was unintentional and bonafide and he deeply regretted for the time taken to comply the orders of this Court and also tendered unqualified apology. 4. In case of Kapildeo Prasad Sah & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 3215 , it is held as follows:- “9.For holding the respondents to have committed contempt, civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that there has been wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. Power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation of the Court's order. Since notice of contempt and punishment for contempt is of far-reaching consequence, these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court's order has been made out. Whether disobedience is wilful in a particular case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. Since notice of contempt and punishment for contempt is of far-reaching consequence, these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court's order has been made out. Whether disobedience is wilful in a particular case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. Judicial orders are to be properly understood and complied. Even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience particularly when attention of the person is drawn to the Court's orders and its implication. Disobedience of Court's order strikes at the very root of rule of law on which our system of governance is based. Power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice. xx xx xx 11. No person can defy Court's order. Wilful would exclude casual, accidental bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order. A petitioner who complains breach of Court's order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court's order. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as the opposite party and perusing the show-cause affidavit filed by the opposite party, we are of the view that though there is delay in disposal of the representation filed by the petitioner and in the fitness of things, extension of time should have been sought for by the opposite party before this Court to decide the claim of the petitioner but since for processing the file and granting opportunity of hearing to the respective parties, some more time was consumed, it cannot be said that there was willful delay or laches on the part of the opposite party in complying the orders of this Court dated 10.04.2013 in W.P.(C) No.23532 of 2012. Moreover the deponent has tendered unqualified apology for the delay caused in disposal of the representation. Power to punish for contempt should always be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection in as much as indiscriminate use of this power would not help to sustain the majesty of law or dignity of the Court, but may affect it adversely. A contemnor must always be given an opportunity to repent. The repentance on the part of the contemnor and tendering of unqualified apology should be permitted to help him escape from punishment. A contemnor must always be given an opportunity to repent. The repentance on the part of the contemnor and tendering of unqualified apology should be permitted to help him escape from punishment. The courts cannot be unduly touchy on the issue of contempt where orders have not been implemented not within stipulated period of time but at a little delayed stage due to exigencies of the situation. However this is not meant to be a licence for violation of an order till it subsists. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to proceed against the opposite party for the contempt of the order of the Court. Therefore, the petition for contempt is dismissed. I agree.