JUDGMENT : B.A. PATIL, J. 1. The basis of the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘Act’ for short) is the alleged breach of order dated 23.2.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.Nos.201436-437/2015 (LB-RES). The said order of the learned Single Judge reads as under:- “The submission made by the petitioner that she is the owner and in possession of the land for the last 80 years and after obtaining prior permission by the competent authorities she has put up construction and inducted State Bank of Hyderabad as its tenant. As things stood thus, the 7th respondent has taken steps to demolish the property which is abutting the main road. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without providing opportunity her property cannot be demolished. 2. Learned counsel for the 7th respondent submits that property of the petitioner could be demolished only after affording opportunity. It is submitted that majority of the residents about 377 filed affidavits and voluntarily vacated. The premises is required to be demolished for widening the road for public purpose. 3. In the light of the submission made by both counsel this writ petition is disposed of. The submission made by the respondent No.7 is taken on record. That the property of the petitioner shall not be demolished without there being due process of law. Petitions are disposed of accordingly.” 2. Facts leading to filing of writ petitions are that petitioner-complainant is the owner in possession of the property bearing Municipal No.1-7-54 (new), 1-7-55 (old), situated at South Road, Yadgir and the property bearing Municipal No.3-3-135 (old) 3-3-136 (new), situated at Ashashariff Mohalla, Yadigir. The complainant succeeded to the said properties from her in-laws and after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipality, she has put up construction of a building. After construction of the building the property bearing Municipal No.3-3-136 was leased in favour of the State Bank of Hyderabad. Subsequently, on 13.2.2015, staff of the accused marked the property in question for the purpose of demolishing the building to the extent of 15 feet without notice to the petitioner-complainant on the premise that the petitioner-complainant had encroached on the public road and that they are intended to widen the road. In that light, on 18.2.2015, accused made a public announcement that owners of the properties should demolish to an extent of 15 feet at their cost. In that light, on 18.2.2015, accused made a public announcement that owners of the properties should demolish to an extent of 15 feet at their cost. It was threatened that any failure on the part of the owners to demolish their properties, the same would be demolished on 21.2.2015. Being apprehensive, petitioner-complainant filed writ petitions before this Court in WP.Nos.201436-437/2015, which came to be disposed of by learned Single Judge on 23.2.2015 with a direction to respondent No.7-accused No.2 not to demolish the property in question without following due process of law. 3. It is contended on behalf of the complainant that by over reaching the order of the learned Single Judge, accused No.2 called the tenant of the complainant on 9.5.2015 and asked him to vacate the property bearing No.1-7-54 (new) 1-7-55(old) and also threatened that the property in question would be demolished on 10.5.2015. The said fact was intimated by the tenant to the complainant and as such the husband of the complainant informed the accused on 9.5.2015 about the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Despite communicating the said order, on 10.5.2015 accused Nos.1 and 2 by using their power and position, demolished the property of the complainant. Hence, the present contempt petition is filed praying to take appropriate action against the accused for having disobeyed the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. After service of notice, accused Nos.1 and 2 have entered appearance and have filed their written reply in the form of affidavits. Accused No.1 in his reply has contended that at the instance of residents of Yadgir City, who have voluntarily removed their encroachments on the public road, complainant has also removed the encroachment on her own. Only with an ulterior motive and mala fide intention to harass the accused, the present contempt petition has been filed and as such he prayed for dropping of the contempt proceeding. 5. Accused No.2 has contended that two buildings in question have been constructed by the complainant by encroaching upon the public road of Municipality. The district administration and the Government appealed to the citizens of the Yadgir Town to remove the encroachment made on the public streets on their own in the interest of public at large for the purpose of widening the road. The district administration and the Government appealed to the citizens of the Yadgir Town to remove the encroachment made on the public streets on their own in the interest of public at large for the purpose of widening the road. It is contended that the people of Yadgir City came forward to voluntarily remove all encroachment on their own by demolishing the encroached structures and it was also reasonably expected from the complainant to resort to removing the encroachment on her own and accordingly the complainant at the instance of public pressure has demolished the building in question. It is further contended that there was no occasion for the complainant to make a representation to the contemnor or GESCOM for disconnection of the electricity. When the complainant herself has got demolished the encroached portion of the road, there is no breach of the order of this Court and as such he prayed for dismissal of the contempt petition. 6. By order dated 9.11.2015, the proceedings as against accused No.1 came to be dropped and as such after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the accused, charges were framed on 23.2.2016 as against accused No.2, which read as under:- “1. That you Khaja Moinuddin, Commissioner of the City Municipal Corporation, Yadgiri Accused No.2, despite the undertaking recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 23.02.2015 in W.P.Nos.201436-437/2015 not to demolish the property of the petitioner, without following the due process of law, demolished the petitioner’s property bearing No.1-7-54(new), 1-7-55(old), and completely damaged the building on 10.05.2015. 2. That you Khaja Moinuddin, Commissioner of the City Municipal Corporation, Yadgiri, by the demolition of the building in breach of the undertaking recorded by the learned Single Judge is not a desirable conduct, causing serious damage to the institution and administration of the justice, having adverse effect and consequences of a transient effect on the system and is likely to wither away by passing of time and also cause permanent damage to the institution and administration of the justice.” 7. In order to prove her case complainant got herself examined as CW.1 and also examined CWs.2 to 7. She has marked documents as per Exs.C1 to C14, whereas accused No.2 got himself examined as DW.1. 8. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 9. In order to prove her case complainant got herself examined as CW.1 and also examined CWs.2 to 7. She has marked documents as per Exs.C1 to C14, whereas accused No.2 got himself examined as DW.1. 8. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 9. Complainant-CW.1 has reiterated the contents of the complaint. She has deposed that on 21.2.2015 accused made a public announcement that owners themselves should demolish the marked portion of their buildings at their own cost. Hence, she approached the High Court by filing the writ petitions and obtained order dated 23.2.2015. A copy of the said order was issued by this Court on 2.3.2015. On late evening of 9.5.2015 she received a phone call from her tenant stating that he was informed that her building would be demolished on 10.5.2015 and the said demolition was to be undertaken by the Commissioner of the Municipality. Immediately thereafter, her husband sent an e-mail to accused No.2 to refrain from demolishing the building without following due process of law, as directed by this Court vide Order dated 23.2.2015. She has further deposed that as she had undergone eye surgery on 10.5.2015 she sent her husband to the building in question, who in turn requested the second accused, who was present at the spot, not to demolish the building in question, to which accused No.2 said that he would not look into any order and got demolished the entire three floors of the building in question and therefore, she has suffered losses. 10. During the course of cross-examination, she has admitted that on 9.2.2015, the Deputy Commissioner had invited all the businessmen, as well as residents of the buildings adjacent to the road in question for the purpose of discussion over widening of the road. She has also admitted that the Deputy Commissioner has placed a proposal for widening of the road. At that time, it was stated that road would be 60 feet wide but thereafter it was stated to be 80 feet. But, she volunteers that she was not present in the said meeting. She has also admitted that at the time of demolition of building, her tenant was carrying on business in the building in question and that she had sent a letter to M/s. GESCOM as per Ex.C14. But, she volunteers that she was not present in the said meeting. She has also admitted that at the time of demolition of building, her tenant was carrying on business in the building in question and that she had sent a letter to M/s. GESCOM as per Ex.C14. Other suggestions made to her have been denied by her. 11. CW.2 is the husband of the complainant. He has deposed on similar lines as that of CW.1-complainant. During the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that the shop is situated in the old market area on the Main Road, Yadgir. He has also admitted that 70% to 80% of the buildings have common walls and the property in question also had common walls on two sides; on one side of the property was the property owned by Rathi’s family and on the other side the property belonged to Laddi. As the common walls are retained, owners of the adjoining properties are not affected. Further, he has admitted that people in the adjoining buildings have continued their business even after demolition and the owner of the said building has not come to the Court being aggrieved by the demolition. Other suggestions have been denied by this witness. 12. CW.3 is the tenant of the complainant. He has deposed that he was running a cloth business in the shop situated in the building in question and was paying rent of Rs.4,000/- per month to the complainant. On 13.2.2015 CMC authorities marked the shop unit for demolition and he brought it to the notice of the complainant. He has further deposed that at the time of demolition he was present and witnessed the same. Demolition took place in his presence and in the presence of husband of the complainant Mrs. Chayadevi, Commissioner of CMC and the public. Complainant’s husband showed the order of the Court to the Commissioner, CMC and requested him not to demolish the building, but the said request was not acceded to by the CMC authorities. He has further deposed that KEB authorities never disconnected the power in respect of the shop in question and when the building was being demolished, nobody felt any electric shock and there was no short circuit. 13. CW.4 is the owner of the property in the same street. He has also reiterated the evidence of CW.2. 14. CW.5 is the tenant of the opposite building. 13. CW.4 is the owner of the property in the same street. He has also reiterated the evidence of CW.2. 14. CW.5 is the tenant of the opposite building. 15. CW.6 is the person who video graphed the demolition of the building on his mobile. 16. CW.7 is the person who lent his camera to the husband of the complainant for video graphing the demolition. 17. DW.1 has deposed in the form of affidavit stating that the encroached area has been demolished by the complainant herself on request of the public. During the course of cross-examination, DW.1 has deposed that he has not issued any notice to any person for having encroached upon the public road in question, as the persons who had encroached, voluntarily sought for demolition of the encroached portion and as against them no action had been taken. He has however admitted that the JCBs belonged to CMC, Yadgir and he was also present in the photographs produced at Ex.C-11(a) to (r). He has also admitted that the complainant was granted the stay order from this Court after demolition work started. All other suggestions have been denied by this witness. 18. From the above evidence, we proceed to consider whether the complainant has proved that there is a willful disobedience of the order of the learned Single Judge. Before proceeding to discuss the merits of the case, we feel it is just and proper to observe that in a contempt proceeding, burden and standard of proof is the same as that of a criminal proceeding and also the principle, ‘he who asserts must prove’ has its due application in the matter of proving the allegation in order to constitute the act of an accused as contempt of Court. It is an established principle of law that the breach of the order of the Court by the accused shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. In this context, we wish to rely on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chhotu Ram Vs. Urvashi Gulati & another, reported in (2001)7 SCC 530 , wherein at paragraph-2, it is observed as under:- “2. As regards the burden and standard of proof, the common legal phraseology “he who asserts must prove” has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. Urvashi Gulati & another, reported in (2001)7 SCC 530 , wherein at paragraph-2, it is observed as under:- “2. As regards the burden and standard of proof, the common legal phraseology “he who asserts must prove” has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. As regards the “standard of proof”, be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi-criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt.” 19. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued and contended that though this Court passed the order dated 23.2.2015 in the presence of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused and inspite of knowing the said order, accused has taken steps for demolition of the shop premises of the complainant. When the accused was having knowledge of the order of this Court and had given an undertaking to the Court, without giving any opportunity to the complainant accused has demolished the building. The said act is in clear violation of order of learned Single Judge, dated 23.2.2015, which is punishable under provisions of the Act. 20. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for accused has contended that all the residents of the said area had consented for demolition of the encroached portion of their buildings and because of the request made by the residents, the complainant herself also demolished the building in question, which is a voluntary act of the complainant and only with a mala fide intention to take action against accused No.2, she created and concocted the documents by colluding with her husband and her relatives. According to learned counsel, there is no willful disobedience of the order of this Court by the accused. He further contended that there is no specific evidence as to who demolished the building in question. It is his further contention that State Bank of Hyderabad is also one of the tenants as per the averments in writ petition, but the staff of the said Bank have not been examined. Only interested witnesses and family members of the complainant have been examined by her. It is his further contention that State Bank of Hyderabad is also one of the tenants as per the averments in writ petition, but the staff of the said Bank have not been examined. Only interested witnesses and family members of the complainant have been examined by her. That E-mails sent by the complainant at Exs.C7 and C8 are created documents, after she voluntarily demolished her property. Ex.C14 is the letter given by the complainant to GESCOM seeking restoration of electricity connection which had already been disconnected. It is further contended by learned counsel appearing for the accused that under what circumstances electricity supply had been disconnected earlier is not forthcoming in the evidence. The said fact clearly indicates that the complainant also intended to demolish her building voluntarily as per the request made by the public. This aspect has been suppressed by the complainant only with an intention to harass accused No.2. Learned counsel further contended that complainant has failed to prove the fact that accused No.2 was involved in the demolition of her building and under whose instruction the demolition work was carried out. On these grounds, he prayed for dropping of the contempt proceeding. 21. It is the specific contention of the complainant that accused No.2 by disobeying order dated 23.2.2015 passed by this Court, has demolished the building on 10.5.2015 after forcing the tenant to vacate. Though the complainant got examined herself as CW.1 and has deposed that she is the owner of the property in question and had obtained an order in her favour dated 23.2.2015 as per Ex.C1, on the evening of 9.5.2015, she received a phone call from her tenant informing her that her building would be demolished on 10.5.2015 by the Commissioner. Immediately thereafter, her husband sent an e-mail to accused No.2 to refrain from demolishing the building. It is an admitted fact that on the date of demolition, CW.1 was not present. She has deposed that she was knowing the fact that on previous day, i.e., on 9.5.2015, local people and other leaders were present in the meeting and in the said meeting they voluntarily agreed to demolish their own buildings. CW.2, husband of the complainant has reiterated the evidence of CW.1. CW.3 who is the tenant of the complainant was present in the premises. CW.2, husband of the complainant has reiterated the evidence of CW.1. CW.3 who is the tenant of the complainant was present in the premises. On perusal of the evidence of CW.3, it is noted that on 13.2.2015 CMC authorities marked the shop unit for demolition and he witnessed the demolition which took place on 10.5.2015. During the course of cross-examination CW.3 has admitted that he is the relative of the complainant and he has not obtained the permission to run his business in the premises in question and there was no written agreement between him and the complainant-landlady, but it was only in oral nature. He has further deposed that KEB never disconnected the power in respect of the shop in question. 22. If the aforesaid evidence is perused along with Ex.C14, which is the letter given by the complainant-landlady to the Section Officer, GESCOM dated 12.3.2015, whereby a request was made to restore the electricity in respect of the said shop, it would indicate that electricity was disconnected on 12.3.2015 whereas demolition took place on 10.5.2015. Under such circumstances, the contention of the complainant that on 9.5.2015 CMC authorities informed her tenant-CW3 about the demolition, who in turn informed the same to the complainant and in the intervening night of 9.5.2015 and 10.5.2015 CW.3 shifted the goods lying in the shop, appears to be not natural and probable. It is very clear that in order to run the cloth business there must be supply of electricity. If as on 12.3.2015, electricity supply was disconnected to the shop, then under such circumstances, running of cloth business by CW.3 in the said shop appears to be untrue. 23. On perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 23.2.2015 it is noted that petitioner-complainant is the owner and in possession of the property in question for several decades and after obtaining prior permission, she put up construction and inducted State Bank of Hyderabad as a tenant. At the time of passing of the order by this Court, if State Bank of Hyderabad was her tenant, then question arises as to when and under what circumstances CW.3 had been inducted as a tenant and as to in which portion of the building he has been inducted. At the time of passing of the order by this Court, if State Bank of Hyderabad was her tenant, then question arises as to when and under what circumstances CW.3 had been inducted as a tenant and as to in which portion of the building he has been inducted. When a specific order has been passed by this Court by mentioning that the State Bank of Hyderabad was the tenant of the complainant in the said premises, again, question arises, as to, when, State Bank of Hyderabad had vacated the premises in question. Hence, it is doubtful as to with reference to which premises order dated 23.2.2015 has been passed by this Court. 24. We are conscious of the fact that this Court has to protect and respect the majesty of law as well as orders passed by this Court, but at the same time, if a reasonable doubt arises and it becomes apparent that there is no willful disobedience or contemptuous conduct by the accused, then under such circumstances, the accused cannot be held guilty and convicted. 25. Further it is the specific contention of accused No.2 that the complainant herself because of the pressure from the public, voluntarily and on her own volition, came forward and demolished the building. If really CW.3 was carrying on business without there being disconnection of supply of electricity and without lifting his goods from the said shop, it is impossible to demolish the said building. It has even come in the evidence of the complainant’s witnesses that two common walls have not been demolished and the owners of adjoining properties have not complained about the said demolition. If really demolition of such common walls has taken place, the rights of owners of the other properties would have been affected. When they do not have any grievance, contention of the complainant that even after showing order dated 23.2.2015 by the husband of the complainant, accused No.2 demolished the said premises, is not acceptable. 26. Further complainant has not examined any independent witness in order to substantiate her case. All the witnesses who have been examined are her relatives. Under such circumstances, it is very difficult to rely upon the testimony of the said interested witnesses. 26. Further complainant has not examined any independent witness in order to substantiate her case. All the witnesses who have been examined are her relatives. Under such circumstances, it is very difficult to rely upon the testimony of the said interested witnesses. Even the evidence produced before this Court indicates that about 377 premises were demolished by the owners on their own and they do not have any grievance and they have not challenged the act of the accused. When so many persons have come forward to demolish their own properties voluntarily, then under such circumstances, the contention of accused No.2 that complainant-landlady due to pressure from other property owners got demolished her property, appears to be reasonable and probable. Thus, the complainant has not made out any case as to why her property was demolished by the accused. 27. Be that as it may. On the other hand it is the contention of accused No.1 that complainant-landlady voluntarily demolished her property and this proceeding against accused No.1 has been dropped vide order dated 9.11.2015. His stand also corroborates with the contention of accused No.2. In that light, complainant’s version is doubtful and not reliable. 28. It is well established principle of law that in contempt proceedings, standard of proof required must be beyond all reasonable doubt. Only on mere probabilities or presumption and assumptions, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that there is willful disobedience of the order of this Court without there being any proof of the said fact. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishan Vs. Tarun Bajaj & others, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 204 , wherein at paragraphs-11 and 12 it has been observed as under:- “11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an offender for his willful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities.” 12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is “willful”. The word “willful” introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one’s state of mind. “Willful” means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing there from. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Willful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a “bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely.” Willful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly; heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. “Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct.” 29. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the above decision, the complainant has not only to prove that there was demolition, but she must also prove that there was a willful and deliberate act on the part of the accused which is willful disobedience of the order of this Court. Mere unintentional acts or genuine inability or carelessness would not be considered inability or carelessness would not be considered to be willful disobedience. Mere unintentional acts or genuine inability or carelessness would not be considered inability or carelessness would not be considered to be willful disobedience. In order to convict the accused under the Act, the complainant has to clearly establish that there was a willful act on the part of the accused. In this behalf, the evidence which has been let by the complainant does not repose any confidence in this Court to hold that there is a willful disobedience of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.2.2015 so as to attract punishment under the provisions of the Act. 30. In view of the above, when a reasonable doubt arises in the case of the complainant and complainant has also not produced any material to show willful disobedience of the accused, this proceeding initiated against accused No.2 deserves to be dropped. 31. Accordingly, contempt proceeding as against accused No.2 is dropped.