JUDGMENT : M.R. Pathak, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. counsel, assisted by learned A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. T.N. Srinivasan for respondent No. 2 with Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 2. Government of India decided to setup 60 Mega Watt Tuirial Hydro Electric Project at Aizawl District in the State of Mizoram through the North Eastern Electric Power Cooperation limited (NEEPCO, in short). For the said purpose on 29.05.1996 an agreement was entered in to between NEEPCO and Government of Mizoram. As per the terms of said agreement, amongst others, it was provided that out of total power generated by the said project, 12% power would be given free to the State of Mizoram and the total land required for the said project shall be acquired by the State Government and such acquired land shall be handed over to NEEPCO on payment of necessary fee to the State Government as assessed. 3. The land required for the said project was identified and surveyed. On such survey, it was found that the entire area required for the project falls within Reverine Reserve Forest of Tuirial and accordingly the Forest Department of the State informed the Power & Electricity Department of the State about the same. On process, the Ministry of Environment, Government of India, subject to compensatory afforestation over equal area of non-forest land and some other terms & condition, allowed the diversion of 5380 Hectares of forest land for execution of the said Tuirial Power Project. For the same NEEPCO paid Rs. 24.46 Crores to the State Government towards such compensatory afforestation. 4. On the other hand, for the Submergence area of said Tuirial Project, Government of Mizoram in its Revenue Department after proper demarcation and measurement, acquired 9189.94 Bighas of land in the Aizawl District under Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended (L.A. Act, in short). For acquisition of said land, a Notification under Section4(1) under the L.A. Act was earlier issued on 03.03.1997, but said acquisition proceeding lapsed as Declaration/Award under the L.A. Act could not issued/passed within the time provided under the said Act. Subsequently another Notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act was issued on 20.8.2001 and Declaration under Section 6 of the said 1894 Act was issued on 09.05.2003. Subsequently another Notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act was issued on 20.8.2001 and Declaration under Section 6 of the said 1894 Act was issued on 09.05.2003. After issuing Notice under Section 9 of the L.A. Act to the persons interested in the land for said acquired land, the Collector & Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District, Aizawl on 14.07.2003 passed the necessary Award under the L.A. Act in the Award No. 6/2003 determining land acquisition compensation at Rs. 5,53,36,663/- for the aforesaid land. It is to be noted herein that said Award No. 6/2003 contained 2(two) parts, namely, (i) Part-I - Private lands covered by LSCs within Ratu & North Serzawl Village Council Area under Court Cases, containing 697.27 Bighas and (ii) Part-II - Private lands covered by LSCs within Ratu & North Serzawl Village Council Area - other than Court Cases with 6(six) Blocks for the remaining acquired land. 5. Petitioners land also acquired for the aforesaid project and their land value was determined under Part-I of the aforesaid Award No. 6/2003. Being aggrieved with such determination of land acquisition compensation in the Award No. 6/2003 of the Collector of Aizawl District, they submitted petition to the said District Collector to refer the matter to the Court for due determination of land acquisition compensation and accordingly matter was referred to the Court. The learned Reference Court viz. the Court of learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Aizawl by its order dated 26.09.2005 passed in L.A. Case No. 1/2014 directed the District Collector, Aizawl to pay 30% Solatium with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of first Notification (03.03.1997). Subsequently, as per order dated 26.09.2005 of the Reference Court in L.A. Case No. 1/2004, the Collector, Aizawl District on 27.01.2006 passed a Supplementary Award in said earlier Award No. 6/2003 under the L.A. Act determining land acquisition compensation at Rs. 4,66,06,436/- payable for said with regard to said land of Part-I - of the Award No. 6/2003 including land value @ Rs. 2/- per square feet, damaged compensation for crops/trees, Solatium @ 30% and interest @ 12% from 03.03.1997 (the date of first & lapsed Notification) to 14.07.2003 (the date of passing of the earlier Award No. 6/2003). 6. 4,66,06,436/- payable for said with regard to said land of Part-I - of the Award No. 6/2003 including land value @ Rs. 2/- per square feet, damaged compensation for crops/trees, Solatium @ 30% and interest @ 12% from 03.03.1997 (the date of first & lapsed Notification) to 14.07.2003 (the date of passing of the earlier Award No. 6/2003). 6. As the petitioners were not paid any acquisition compensation for their acquired land, they preferred an Execution Case being No. 13/2010 before learned Additional District Judge-I Aizawl for execution of the Decree in terms of the order dated 26.09.2010 passed in the aforesaid Reference Case viz. L.A. Case No. 1/2004, wherein, the learned Additional District Judge - 1 by his order dated 10.12.2010 passed in the said Execution Case No. 13/2010 directed the District Collector, Aizawl to pay the awarded compensation of Rs. 4,66,06,436/- with interest @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 15.07.2003 till full and final amount of the said award by procuring the said amount from NEEPCO and to deposit the said amount to the Court for payment to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of the order fixing 11.03.2011 for further order. 7. Against such direction of the learned Additional District Judge-I Aizawl, passed in said Execution Case No. 13/2010; NEEPCO preferred a Revision Petition being CRP No. 2/2011 to delete their name from the said order dated 10.12.2010. In the said Revision Petition, including the present 34 (thirty four) petitioners; the Chief Secretary, Secretary of Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Secretary, Environment & Forest Department of the Government of Mizoram and the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Aizawl District were also made party respondents. After hearing the parties including the petitioners this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 02.07.2012 set aside the impugned direction dated 10.12.2010 of the learned Executing Court passed in Execution Case No. 13/2010 to the effect that: "by procuring the same from the NEEPCO". 8. The petitioners on 14.08.2014 filed the present Contempt Petition under Article 215 of the constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the then Chief Secretary of the State for her willful and deliberate violation of Court's direction given in the said Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 78/2010, annexing the copy of the order dated 02.07.2012 passed in CRP No. 2/2011. However, in the body of the petition at para 4 & 5 the petitioners mentioned about the findings and aforementioned orders dated 10.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I Aizawl in Execution Case No. 13/2010 and the order 02.07.2012 passed by this Court in CRP No. 2/2011, without making any submission about the order dated 31.05.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 78/2010. 9. Initially, the Court on 16.08.2014 issued notice to the contemnor i.e. the former Chief Secretary of the State, namely Shri L. Tochhawng, IAS. During the pendency of this petition, she retired from service and thereafter on the basis of an order dated 04.12.2014 passed by the Court in C.M. Application No. 204/2014 that was preferred by the petitioners, the present Chief Secretary of the State, namely, Shri Lalmalsawma, IAS was impleaded in the Contempt proceeding as respondent No. 2 and accordingly notice was also issued to him. 10. The respondent No. 2 earlier on 11.02.2015 and 06.04.2015 filed two affidavits in the matter appraising the present status of the land acquisition matter with regard to the said Tuirial Hydro Electric Project including that of the petitioners. 11. 10. The respondent No. 2 earlier on 11.02.2015 and 06.04.2015 filed two affidavits in the matter appraising the present status of the land acquisition matter with regard to the said Tuirial Hydro Electric Project including that of the petitioners. 11. On 06.04.2015, the respondent No. 2 as an applicant, filed C.M. Application No. 23/2015 in the present petition raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present Contempt petition on the grounds that (i) he joined as Chief Secretary of the State only on 01.11.2014, (ii) he was impleaded in the Contempt case only on 04.12.2014, (iii) in the Cause Title of the Contempt petition, petitioners mentioned deliberate and willful violation of the direction contained in the judgment & order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Court in WP(C) No. 78/2010, which has no relevancy with the subject matter of the Contempt case in question (iv) did not annex or referred anything in the body of the Contempt petition about any contempt against the said order 31.05.2011, (v) the Contempt petition is barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 as the said judgments and orders in WP(C) No. 78/2010 as well as CRP No. 2/2011 were passed on 31.05.2011 and 02.07.2012 respectively, (vi) there is no positive direction of the Hon'ble Court in the order dated 02.07.2012 passed in CRP No. 2/2011 directing the applicant/respondent Chief Secretary of the State to pay the awarded compensation to the petitioners, (vii) no time limit was fixed by the Court in the order dated 02.07.2012 for compliance of any specific direction for payment of compensation by the applicant/respondent. 12. Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the petitioners/opposite parties have filed the present Contempt petition only to avoid pursuance of the execution proceeding in the Execution Case No. 13/2010 pending before the competent Court of learned Additional District Judge-I Aizawl and therefore, the petitioners do not have any jurisdiction to file the present Contempt petition since they cannot be allowed to pursue parallel proceedings in the absence of any order or direction of this Hon'ble Court to pay the awarded compensation to the contempt petitioners in terms of the Award No. 6/2003 of the District Collector, Aizawl. 13. Mr. 13. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel placed reliance in Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases reported in AIR 1984 SC-1264, (2001) 7 SCC 549 and AIR 2008 Gauhati 98. 14. The contempt petitioners filed their affidavit in the said C.M. Appl. No. 23/2015 annexing a copy of the order dated 11.07.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Aizawl in Execution Case No. 13/2010. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the contempt petitioners relied on the judgments the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1989 Supp 2 SCC 418 and (2001) 7 ACC 549. 15. After filing of the aforesaid C.M. Application No. 23/2015 by the respondent No. 2, the petitioners on 24.04.2015 filed a miscellaneous application being I.A. No. 13/2015 under the provisions of Section 151 CPC for making corrigendum in the Cause Title of in the present Contempt petition for replacing "Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 78/2010" by "Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2012 in CRP No. 2/2011". 16. Mr. Choudhury learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Rokhum, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 have submitted that the respondents do not have any objection for necessary correction in the present Contempt petition as prayed for by the petitioners in the said application I.A. No. 13/2015. 17. As agreed by the parties to this proceeding, the present Contempt petition along with C.M. Appl. No. 23/2015 of the respondent No. 2 wherein he raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this proceeding and I.A. No. 13/2015 filed by the contempt petitioners for necessary correction in the present Contempt petition are taken up for final consideration. 18. As the respondents does not have any objection for necessary correction of the Cause Title in the present Contempt petition, said I.A. No. 13/2015 preferred by the contempt petitioners is allowed and it is provided that in the present Contempt petition wherever the words "Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 78/2010" appears, the same shall be read as "Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2012 in CRP No. 2/2011". 19. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and also considered the judgments cited by them. 20. The petitioners have filed the present Contempt petition under the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 19. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and also considered the judgments cited by them. 20. The petitioners have filed the present Contempt petition under the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The said petition was filed on 14.08.2014 against the respondents for their alleged contempt of the order dated 02.07.2012 passed in CRP No. 2/2011. 21. Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the petitioners have filed the present contempt petition against the respondents only on 14.08.2014 for contempt of order dated 02.07.2012 passed in CRP No. 2/2011, which has been filed after two years of alleged contempt and as such the present petition is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In this regard Mr. Choudhury has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pallav Seth Vs. Custodian & Ors., reported in (2001) 7 SCC 549 have settled the law that for the quantum of punishment or what may or may not be regarded as acts of contempt or even providing for a period of limitation for initiating proceeding for contempt cannot be taken to be a provision which abrogates or stultifies the contempt jurisdiction under Article 129 or Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 22. Mr. Choudhury has also relied on a decision of a Division Bench this High Court in the case of All Manipur Aided Elementary Schools, Manipur Vs. Henry K. Heni & others, reported in a Division Bench which also followed the same principle as that of Pallav Seth Vs. Custodian & others of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said decision of the Division Bench, the Court did not exercised the power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India as the said case was not a such one where Court can exercise such inherent power. 23. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides for limitation for actions for contempt which reads as follows: "20. Limitation for actions for contempt. - No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed". 24. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. Limitation for actions for contempt. - No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed". 24. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners on the other hand relying on the same decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pallav Seth Vs. Custodian & Ors., reported in (2001) 7 SCC 549 submitted that in the same Judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that: "Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has to be construed in a manner which would avoid such an anomaly and hardship both as regards the litigants as also by placing a pointless fetter on the part of the Court to punish for its contempt." 25. Mr. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the petitioners submitted that non payment of awarded amount of land acquisition compensation by the respondents for acquiring their land by the State Government is a continuing wrong and therefore said Contempt petition of the petitioners is not bared under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In this regard Mr. Lalramzauva has placed reliance in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar Vs. Kalu Ram & Ors. reported in (1989) Supp 2 SCC 418. 26. Mr. Lalramzauva by placing the copy of the order dated 11.07.2013 passed in Execution Case No. 13/2010 (Annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the present petitioners in the C.M. Appl. No. 23/2015 of respondent No. 2) has submitted that in terms of Court's order dated 02.07.2012 passed in CRP No. 2/2011, a Cabinet meeting was held on 07.03.2013, considered the matter and decided that Chief Secretary of the State with assistance of two Principal Secretaries may examine the issue of payment. But he stated that respondents have not paid any compensation to the petitioners for their acquired land till date. 27. While disposing of the said CRP No. 2/2011 on 02.07.2012, the Court in paras 15, 27, 28, 29, 30 & 34 observed as follows: "15. But he stated that respondents have not paid any compensation to the petitioners for their acquired land till date. 27. While disposing of the said CRP No. 2/2011 on 02.07.2012, the Court in paras 15, 27, 28, 29, 30 & 34 observed as follows: "15. In the meanwhile, in an interesting development, a NGO filed a Public Interest Litigation, PIL No. 15 of 2008, before this Court contending that the land acquired for the project was forest land but certain persons had made fictitious claims for compensation when such persons did not have any right, title and interest in the land acquired. It was contended that there was collusion between the claimants and certain Govt. officials which resulted in the award being made in favour of the claimants, which was subsequently enhanced on orders of the reference Court. Claiming that it was an attempt to siphon off public money, the PIL prayed for a high level inquiry into the matter. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 21-04-2010 directed that the matter be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI thereafter investigated the matter and filed FIR. In the course of the hearing, it has been submitted that the above case was registered as Imphal Case No. RC 6(A)/2010 and charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against 9 persons. 27. It is the State which had acquired the land under provisions of the Act. The land owners are not concerned for whom the land was acquired or who would pay the compensation. In fact, when Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. counsel for the land owners was asked by the Court as to whether they would insist on payment being made by the State Government or by the NEEPCO, he very fairly submitted that the land owners are concerned only with the payment of compensation for acquisition of their lands and they are not concerned as to who makes the payment, whether the State Government or NEEPCO. On a further query put by the Court, he admitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 34 would in no way be prejudiced if the impugned direction is set aside. 28. Since it is the State Government which acquired the land, it is liable to pay compensation to the land owners. On a further query put by the Court, he admitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 34 would in no way be prejudiced if the impugned direction is set aside. 28. Since it is the State Government which acquired the land, it is liable to pay compensation to the land owners. Whether the State Government should re-cover the amount from NEEPCO or whether NEEPCO should pay the said amount to the State Government is a matter to be decided by and between the said two authorities and no way concerns the land owners. 29. As the land was acquired by the State Government, it has to satisfy the award and, therefore, it has to deposit the awarded amount of compensation with the Executing Court. This is also the view expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bharat Steel Tubes Manufacturing Ltd. (supra). 30. Part VII of the Act comprising of sections 38A to 44B deals with acquisition of land for companies. Section 41 provides for execution of agreement with the appropriate Government containing amongst others provision for payment to the appropriate Government of the cost of the acquisition. As already referred to above, in terms of the aforesaid provision, agreement dated 29.05.1996 was entered into between the Government of Mizoram and NEEPCO. Clause 8 of the said agreement provided that the land required for the project would be acquired by the State Government and handed over to NEEPCO on payment of necessary fee to the State Government as assessed by the State Government. According to NEEPCO, since the acquired land was forest land, the amount paid for compensatory afforestation was the necessary fee to be paid to the State Government, which has been paid. The relevant portion of the award as approved by the State Government, as already noticed, also makes interesting reading. It says that if NEEPCO takes the stand that they would not pay any compensation after they have paid the amount for compensatory afforestation to the Forest Department, Mizoram, the question as to whether or not compensation will be paid to private land/garden owners needs to be considered by the Council of Ministers, Government of Mizoram. 34. It says that if NEEPCO takes the stand that they would not pay any compensation after they have paid the amount for compensatory afforestation to the Forest Department, Mizoram, the question as to whether or not compensation will be paid to private land/garden owners needs to be considered by the Council of Ministers, Government of Mizoram. 34. Before parting with the record, this Court would like to observe that in view of the CBI investigation as referred to above and the stand taken by Forest Department, Mizoram, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram may look into the matter and take a conscious decision keeping in view the public interest involved. However, it is not for the Court to suggest as to what course of action should be adopted. Beyond this, the Court refrains from saying any further." 28. From the above it is seen that land acquired for the Tuirial Power Project was forest land and certain persons had made fictitious claims for land compensation though such persons did not have any right, title and interest in the land acquired as the same was forest land. It was also found that there was collusion between the claimants and some Government officials and as such land acquisition awards were made in favour of such claimants, which was subsequently enhanced on orders of the reference Court. In such a manner certain persons made attempt to siphon off public money. Therefore, in a PIL, Division Bench of this Court by order dated 21.04.2010 directed for investigation of the matter by the Central Bureau of Investigation and accordingly FIR was filed, Imphal Case No. RC 6(A)/2010 have been registered wherein, after necessary investigation, CBI submitted the charge sheet against 9 persons. Since the NEEPCO has already paid the necessary compensation to the Forest Department, Mizoram towards compensatory afforestation for the land already acquired for the project, which were forest land, they are not going to pay any further land acquisition compensation and therefore the question as to whether any compensation for the land acquired by the State Government for the said project shall be paid to land owners of private land/garden owners or not needs to be considered by the Council of Ministers of Government of Mizoram. In the aforesaid background and considering the fact that there is an involvement of public interest in the matter, the Court by its order dated 02.07.2012 passed in said CRP No. 2/2011 observed that the Chief Secretary of the State may look into the matter for taking a conscious decision in that regard. However the Court refrained from suggesting any course of action to be adopted in the matter. 29. It is to be noted herein that the said revision petition was filed by the NEEPCO, only to delete their name from the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl in the Execution Case No. 13/2010, which was filed by the petitioners, wherein the Executing Court by the said dated 10.12.2010 directed the District Collector, Aizawl to pay the land acquisition compensation to the petitioners as awarded in the Award No. 6/2003 procuring the said amount from NEEPCO and in the said revision petition no other orders or direction was prayed for by the NEEPCO and in the said revision petition, the present petitioners were respondents only. 30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s. Oswal Woolen Mills Limited & Ors., reported in 1984 AIR SC 1264 has held that- "7. In regard to the rule for contempt of Court, we find it difficult to sustain the same. Though ordinarily we would have left the matter to be decided by the High Court, we think it unnecessary to do so in the present case having regard to the elaborate arguments addressed to us by both parties. The complaint of the writ petitioners in seeking the rule for contempt of Court was that the authorities had not dealt with their applications for licences, etc. despite the 'abeyance' order having been stayed. It is obvious that the stay of the operation of the 'abeyance' order merely meant that the writ petitioners were entitled to have their applications disposed of by the concerned authorities. The High Court not having set any limit of time for the disposal of the applications, it was not for the writ petitioners to impose a time limit and demand that their applications should be disposed of forthwith. The High Court not having set any limit of time for the disposal of the applications, it was not for the writ petitioners to impose a time limit and demand that their applications should be disposed of forthwith. If the writ petitioners were aggrieved by the failure of the authorities to dispose of their applications expeditiously, it was open to them to seek a further direction from the Court fixing a limit of time within which the applications were to be disposed of. We fail to see how the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports or the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports could be said to have committed any contempt of Court, even prima facie, by their mere failure to take action in the matter of the disposal of the applications of the writ petitioners. In the circumstances, we perceive the application to commit the authorities for contempt of Court to be a device to exact licences from them." 31. The petitioners did not deny the fact that the money execution case being Execution Case No. 13/2010 filed by them for realising the amount of land acquisition compensation, as awarded in the Award No. 6/2003 of the Collector of Aizawl District for acquisition of their land for the above noted project, is pending for disposal. With regard to the acquisition compensation for the same land, the present petitioners earlier preferred a Writ Petition, W.P. (C) No. 77 of 2006, before this Court and the Court by order dated 04.12.2007 disposed of the same holding that: "since the matter relates to execution of the award passed by the L.A. Case by the Collector after passing of order by the learned Acquisition Court and the remedy for the petitioners is to file necessary petition for execution of said award and not by way of this writ petition invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction if this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution". 32. As such instead of pursuing the said execution proceeding and agitating the matter in the same for realisation of the awarded amount, the petitioners cannot take recourse to some other forum, like the present contempt petition against the respondents for violation of the order dated 02.07.2012 passed by this Court in said CRP No. 2/2011, where there is no specific direction for payment of any awarded amount of compensation to the petitioners. 33. 33. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides the pre conditions for holding a person liable for Civil Contempt and that there must be willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. For the purpose of contempt there must be disobedience of an expressed and specific order or direction. 34. The Court while deciding the said revision petition, by its order dated 02.07.2012 passed in said CRP No. 2/2011 neither made any specific direction to the Chief Secretary of the State nor specified any time limit for compliance of any such direction and only made an observation which is evident from the word "may" that appears in 'para 34' of the said order dated 02.07.2012. Said observation of the Court dated 02.07.2012 with "may" itself is susceptible to an interpretation that as per the said order dated 02.07.2012, keeping in view the public interest involved in the case, the Chief Secretary of the Government of Mizoram was free either to look into the matter and take a conscious decision or not. The petitioners herein by way of this Contempt proceeding cannot pressurise the respondents of the case to take a decision within a time limit for payment of awarded amount of land acquisition compensation in a money execution case since the Court by its dated 02.07.2012 did not give any specific direction to the Chief Secretary of the Mizoram Government to comply with any order within a specified time. 35. As such the Court is of the view that the petitioners by filing the present contempt petition against the respondents in absence of any such specific direction that too without any time limit in the order dated 02.07.2012 in CRP No. 2/2011 cannot compel the respondents to pay the awarded amount in an Execution case by alleging contempt of the said order against them. 36. When there is no expressed and specific order or direction, question of non compliance and or disobedience of the same for willful contempt does not arise. For the reasons stated above, the respondents cannot be said to have committed any contempt of this Court's order dated 02.07.2012 passed in CRP No. 2 of 2011. 36. When there is no expressed and specific order or direction, question of non compliance and or disobedience of the same for willful contempt does not arise. For the reasons stated above, the respondents cannot be said to have committed any contempt of this Court's order dated 02.07.2012 passed in CRP No. 2 of 2011. Moreover, from the discussions made herein above, the Court is also of the opinion that it is a case where the inherent power under Article 215 of the Constitution is not required to be exercised. Accordingly, this contempt petition is dismissed. Notice issued to the respondents in this Contempt proceeding is discharged.