JUDGMENT Battu Devanand, J. - This Contempt Case has been filed seeking to punish the respondents for violation of the orders, dated 15.02.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.3609 of 2021. 2. The petitioner filed W.P.No.3609 of 2021 praying to declare the action of the respondents in executing the work by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is against G.O.Ms.No.171 M.A., dated 01.05.2004 and without opening the finance bid of petitioner towards the tender notification in proceedings Rc.No.1469/2020/S4(II), dated 12.01.2021 for transportation of Teak timber (Final Harvesting) I 1967 TP Kovvada RF-II, Kotrupalli Beat of P.R.Gudem Section of Kannapuram Range, West Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application with a prayer to direct the respondents to stop the work made by respondent Nos.2 and 3, henchmen and followers against tender notification vide proceedings Rc.No.1469/2020/S4(II), dated 12.01.2021 for transportation of Teak timber (Final Harvesting) I 1967 TP Kovvada RF-II, Kotrupalli Beat of P.R.Gudem Section of Kannapuram Range, West Godavari District, to open the commercial bid of the petitioner to finalize the tender notification. 4. The writ petition came up for admission before the Court on 15.02.2021. After hearing both sides counsel the following order is passed: "Heard Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Forests and perused the record. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that due to Panchayat Elections, the tender process was not completed yet. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are executing the work through their henchmen and followers against the work mentioned in the tender notification dated 12.01.2021. Having considered the submissions of both the counsel, in the opinion of this Court, this is a fit case to grant interim direction to the respondents. Accordingly, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents not to execute the work with anybody for the works which were mentioned in the tender notification, dated 12.01.2021, till finalization of the tender process." 5. Complaining that the respondents violated the orders of the Court, dated 15.02.2021, the present contempt case is filed. 6. The respondents filed their counter-affidavits. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the entire material available on record. 8. Complaining that the respondents violated the orders of the Court, dated 15.02.2021, the present contempt case is filed. 6. The respondents filed their counter-affidavits. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the entire material available on record. 8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and upon perusal of the averments made in the reply filed by the 1st respondent, this Court opined that there is no any role on the part of the 1st respondent in implementing or violating the orders of this Court, dated 15.02.2021 and accordingly, by order, dated 30.03.2021, the contempt case is closed against the 1st respondent. 9. The 2nd respondent filed reply affidavit and subsequently an additional affidavit also filed. In the reply affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent in the month of March, 2021 at para No.5, it is contended as extracted hereunder: It is respectfully submitted that, the Government Pleader for Forests has intimated that this Hon'ble High Court has granted the above interim orders on 15.02.2021 at 1-30 p.m. It is pertinent to submit here that even prior to the said intimation the e-tender was cancelled online on 15.02.2021 at 11-35 am itself and the EMD was also refunded to the petitioner along with other 2 participants. Thus, the above extraction work of timber which was taken up departmentally was continued and 57.50% of work was also completed as on 17.03.2021 i.e., the date of approval of counter. As per the tender condition No.21 of the tender notification, the Forest Department reserves the right to accept or reject any tender or all tenders without assigning any reasons thereof to the applicants. The further contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are executing the works through the previous contractor is absolutely false and misconceived but in fact the department itself is executing the extraction work of the timber. 10. Upon careful perusal of the averments at para No.5 of the reply affidavit of the 2nd respondent, it is averred that on 15.02.2021 prior to granting interim order, on the same day the e-tender was cancelled and EMD was refunded to the petitioner. It is also contended in the reply affidavit that the above extraction work of timber which was taken up departmentally was continued and 57.50% of work was also completed as on 17.03.2021. It is also contended in the reply affidavit that the above extraction work of timber which was taken up departmentally was continued and 57.50% of work was also completed as on 17.03.2021. 11. The 2nd respondent filed additional reply affidavit on 24.02.2021. At para No.3 of the additional reply of the 2nd respondent it is contended as extracted hereunder: It is respectfully submitted that the writ affidavit filed by the petitioner herein was received by this respondent on 12.02.2021 through e-mail and thereafter written instructions were sent to the GP for Forests on 14.02.2021 through e-mail informing that the e-tender notification, dated 12.01.2021 could not be opened on 28.01.2021, as scheduled due to the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) of Panchayat Elections notified on 23.01.2021, and as works are urgent in nature, the said works were taken up through departmental method. 12. In the said affidavit at para No.7 it is contended that "carrying out the work departmentally (through Vana Samrakshana Samithi here) in the event of Model Code of Conduct due to Panchayat elections was totally unavoidable and in the larger public interest of realizing revenue to the government and also ensuring livelihood opportunities to the local villagers residing in the Kotrupally area." 13. At para No.9 of the said reply affidavit it is also stated that Vana Samrakshana Samithi Members, Orinka came forward with a resolution to take up the work on 04.02.2021 and the works were taken up by the Vana Samrakshana Samithi Members from 05.02.2021. 14. Upon careful examination of the contentions of 2nd respondent in the additional reply affidavit, it is contended that in view of the Model Code of Conduct of Panchayat elections, the tenders cannot be finalized and works cannot be awarded and in view of the urgency of work, the works were entrusted to the Vana Samrakshana Samithi, Orinka on 04.02.2021 and the Vana Samrakshana Samithi Members, Orinka started execution of work from 05.02.2021. 15. The 2nd respondent in the additional affidavit filed in April, 2021, contended that the execution of work (i.e.) transportation of teak timber (Final Harvesting) in 1967 TP Kovvada RF-II, Kortupalli Beat of P.R. Gudem Section of Kannapuram Range, during the year 2020-2021 was entrusted to the Vana Samrakshana Samithi Members, Orinka on 04.02.2021 and the same was taken up by them from 05.02.2021. But, in the reply affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent in the month of March, 2021, it is contended that on 15.02.2021 the tender notification was cancelled by the nd respondent, as such, it is clear that prior to cancellation of the tender notification, dated 12.01.2021, the said works were entrusted to the Vana Samrakshana Samithi, Orinka on 04.02.2021. 16. The contention of the 2nd respondent is not acceptable, because, once tender notification is issued without cancelling the tender, it is not permissible under settled law, to entrust the same work mentioned in the tender notification to third party (including VSS). If the contention of the 2nd respondent is examined in different angle, if entrustment of work to VSS, Orinka by 2nd respondent on 04.02.2021 is true, the 2nd respondent ought to have cancelled the tender notification by invoking condition No.21 of the tender notification prior to 04.02.2021. It is not done. Only on 15.02.2021 after passing order by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2021, the 2nd respondent cancelled the tender notification. All these factual aspects forcing this Court to believe that, only with intention to defeat the order, dated 15.02.2021 of this Court, the 2nd respondent cancelled the tender notification on the same day. 17. It is to be noted that while passing interim order by this Court on 15.02.2021, the learned Government Pleader for Forest, on instructions, submitted that tenders process was not yet completed due to Panchayat Elections. With regard to execution of work departmentally or by Vana Samrakshana Samithi from 05.01.2021 (as contended in reply affidavits) is not brought to the notice of the Court. As such, the contention of the 2nd respondent on this aspect is not believable and it is invented to defeat the order of the Court. 18. Now in the opinion of this Court, it is appropriate to examine the relevant Rules applicable to the scheme of constitution of Vana Samrakshana Samithi, issued vide G.O.Ms.No.13, Environment Forest Science & Technology (FOR.III) Department, dated 12.02.2002. At para No.2 of annexure-I appended to the said G.O., the duties and responsibilities of Vana Samrakshana Samithi are provided. The same are extracted hereunder: II. At para No.2 of annexure-I appended to the said G.O., the duties and responsibilities of Vana Samrakshana Samithi are provided. The same are extracted hereunder: II. Duties and Responsibilities of Vana Samrakshana Samithi: The members of Vana Samrakshana Samithi, individually and collectively shall be responsible to: a) Ensure protection of forest and assist the Forest Department in protecting the adjoining forests whenever such assistance is sought for by the department. b) Make other villagers aware of the importance of forests. c) Prepare micro-plans and annual plans in accordance with the corresponding working plan (as outlined below). d) Manage forests in accordance with the approved micro-plan/annual plan. e) Apprehend offenders of forest law and hand them over to the concerned authorities to take action under the provisions of the relevant Forest Acts and Rules. f) For minor offences the V.S.S. can collect advance Compounding Fees not exceeding Rs.100/- (rupees one hundred only). The amount so collected shall be remitted by the V.S.S. to the Joint Account (VSS account). Details of such remittances shall be reported to the Forest Beat Officer concerned and recorded in the V.S.S. book of accounts. The concerned Forest Officer authorized under the relevant Forest Acts and Rules will book the offence by issuing the P.O.R. and take follow up action as per the departmental procedures. Upon completion of departmental procedure, the V.S.S. will retain 50% of the compounding fees and return the balance 50% to the Forest Beat Officer for remitting to the Government. 19. On careful perusal of the duties and responsibilities of Vana Samrakshana Samithi, it is clear that extraction and transportation of teak timber (Final Harvesting) is not provided in the duties and responsibilities of Vana Samrakshana Samithi, and, as such, the contention of the 2 nd respondent that the execution of work mentioned in the tender notification, dated 12.01.2021 to extraction and transportation of teak timber (Final Harvesting) in 1967 TP Kovvada RF-II, Kortupalli Beat of P.R. Gudem Section of Kannapuram Range, During the year 2020-2021 was entrusted to the Vana Samrakshana Samithi Members, Orinka does not arise. 20. 20. In view of the above, it is clear that the 2nd respondent with an intention to defeat the order of this Court, dated 15.02.2021, immediately cancelled the tender notification, dated 12.01.2021 and executed the work with some third parties and now trying to escape from the contempt of Court contending that the said work was executed by the Vana Samrakshana Samithi Members, Orinka. 21. For the above mentioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order of this Court, dated 15.02.2021, is not implemented by the 2 nd respondent and it amounts to willful disobedience of order of this Court. As such, the 2 nd respondent is found guilty of contempt of Court and is liable for punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. 22. This Court satisfied that the 2 nd respondent is willfully disobeyed the interim orders of this Court. 23. In the reply affidavit it is contended by 2nd respondent that she has not violated the orders of the Court and in any event, she tendered her unconditional apology to the Court. This Court is unable to accept the apology tendered by the contemnor, as it is not "Bonafide". 24. A Four Judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mulkh Raj vs. State of Punjab, (1972) 3 SCC 839 made the following observations which would throw considerable light on the question before us: "Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace apology is shorn of penitence. If apology is offered at a time when the contemnor finds that the Court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. The High Court was right in not taking any notice of the appellants expression of apology "without any further word". The High Court correctly said that acceptance of apology in the case would amount to allow the offender to go way with impunity after having committed gross contempt." 25. The High Court was right in not taking any notice of the appellants expression of apology "without any further word". The High Court correctly said that acceptance of apology in the case would amount to allow the offender to go way with impunity after having committed gross contempt." 25. After hearing the contemnor/2nd respondent with regard to quantum of sentence and keeping the nature of the offence into mind, in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, this Court is passing the following Order: Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and the Contemnor/2 nd respondent is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two (02) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default, she shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week. 26. At request of contemnor, the sentence is suspended for four (04) weeks from today. 27. There shall be no order as to costs. 28. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Contempt Case shall stand closed.