JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to grant admission to the petitioner to join in the M.B.B.S course in their medical college, for the period of 2015-2016 as according to the merit list made by the second respondent. This Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish all the respondents for their willful disobedience and willful non compliance of this Honourable Court's order dated 25.09.2015 made in WP.(MD).No.17182 of 2015.) The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent Medical College to grant admission to the petitioner to join in the M.B.B.S., course in their medical college in the academic year 2015-2016 according to the merit list made by the second respondent herein. 2. According to the petitioner, though she had secured 194.5 cut off marks, she could not get a medical college seat under the Government quota. Hence, she had applied to the 12 private medical colleges, who are the members of the second respondent association under the management quota for the academic year 2015-16. According to the petitioner, she had applied to the second respondent herein, quoting third respondent college as her first preference and Annapoorna Medical College, Salem as her second preference for joining the M.B.B.S., course. According to the petitioner, as per the prospectus issued by the second respondent on 20.09.2015, a common rank list would be prepared and published by them and according to the cut off marks of the students, the students have to contact the college as per their preference. 3. The petitioner has further submitted that she was under the legitimate expectation that her cut off being 194.5 marks, her name would be found in the ranking list. However, no such ranking list was ever published by the second respondent herein. Though the petitioner and her father went to the third respondent college, there was no display of the rank list in the notice board or the website as per the directions of the Division Bench. 4. The petitioner had further contended that the second respondent association is not following the admission procedure and hence, every year several malpractices are happening to avoid meritorious candidates and they are attempting to fill up the seats by non-meritorious candidates by collecting capitation fee. 4. The petitioner had further contended that the second respondent association is not following the admission procedure and hence, every year several malpractices are happening to avoid meritorious candidates and they are attempting to fill up the seats by non-meritorious candidates by collecting capitation fee. The petitioner has further contended that due to non-display of the result, she is not in a position to get admission, though she is ready to join the said college even on 21.09.2015. Hence, she has given a representation on 21.09.2015 to the third respondent college to give her admission for the academic year 2015-16. The first respondent committee, being a monitory committee and a statutory authority, they should monitor the selection and admission of the students in the member colleges of the second respondent association and they have not taken any action for the reasons best known to them. Hence, the petitioner had prayed for a mandamus to grant admission to join M.B.B.S., course in the third respondent medical college for the academic year 2015-16 as per the merit list prepared by the second respondent. 5. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner had filed M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 seeking a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to display the rank list of M.B.B.S., course for the academic year 2015-16 immediately, pending disposal of the above writ petition. 6. The learned Single Judge of this Court has passed an interim order on 25.09.2015, directing the second respondent to publish the rank list and if the name of the petitioner comes within the zone of consideration for admission to M.B.B.S., course, the second respondent was directed to grant admission to the petitioner in any one of the 12 colleges under them. In the said interim application, the learned counsel for the third respondent college had appeared and placed on record that for the said academic year, they are waiting for the approval from the Medical Council of India and hence, it is not possible to admit any students before getting approval. 7. Alleging violation of this order, dated 25.09.2015, the writ petitioner has filed Cont.P(MD)No.930 of 2016. The contentions of the petitioner in the said affidavit are as follows: (a) The petitioner had approached Chennai Medical College, but they were not in a position to admit the petitioner as they did not have recognition for admitting the students for the year 2015-16. Alleging violation of this order, dated 25.09.2015, the writ petitioner has filed Cont.P(MD)No.930 of 2016. The contentions of the petitioner in the said affidavit are as follows: (a) The petitioner had approached Chennai Medical College, but they were not in a position to admit the petitioner as they did not have recognition for admitting the students for the year 2015-16. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the respondent association office to allot any other college. The petitioner was granted an order of admission to Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research Centre at Coimbatore, but the said college had refused to admit the petitioner on 30th of September on the contention that admission was closed on 27.09.2015. (b) Though as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment, admission to medical colleges can be made up to 30th of September, the said college had refused to admit the petitioner in order to accommodate non-meritorious students after receiving capitation fee. (c) Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the respondent association and again, she was granted an order of admission for Chennai Medical College, Trichy by convincing her that they would get recognition from Medical Council of India for admitting the students shortly. However, the said college could not get recognition. (d) This kind of scam is going on every year and the meritorious students are being refused admission only in order to accommodate non-meritorious, who are paying capitation fee. Hence, not only the Secretary of the association, but also its members have committed contempt of the Court by their willful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 24.09.2015. 8. The contempt petition has been filed as against all the 12 members of the constituent colleges, which have formed the second respondent association. All the contemnors are the Trustees or office bearers of their respective colleges and they are acting as representatives of their respective colleges in the association. The association is being represented by the Secretary. 9. The contentions of the respondents are as follows: (a) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the admission to the self financing medical colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu is being regulated, administered and monitored by a statutory committee, appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.Abdul Hadi, retired Judge of the High Court. By proceedings, dated 06.08.2015, the committee had passed its proceedings. Justice A.Abdul Hadi, retired Judge of the High Court. By proceedings, dated 06.08.2015, the committee had passed its proceedings. As per the said proceedings, the advertisement has to be released on 22.08.2015 and the same day, applications shall be issued. The last date for issue of application is 01.09.2015. The last date for submission of filled in application forms is 02.09.2015. Thr publication of the rank list should be made on or before 20.09.2015 and on the same day, admissions could be commenced in the respective colleges. The last date for admission was fixed as 27.09.2015 and the last date for giving details of lapsed seats was fixed as 29.09.2015. (b) The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that as per Clause-4 of the said proceedings, the rank list prepared by the association should be sent to the committee for approval before its publication. Only after approval of the rank list by the committee, the association has to publish the rank list in its registered office and in the premises of the respective colleges on 20.09.2015. The rank list should also be posted in the official website of the association. (c) The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the association was permitted to nominate a responsible person for the purpose of admission process with the approval of the committee. The committee in turn will nominate a person to oversee the admission process. (d) According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the merit list was posted in the website on 20.09.2015 and the copies were also displayed in the association office and in the premises of the respective college members. Hence, the contention of the writ petitioner that rank list was not at all published on the date of filing of the writ petition is not factually correct. Had the petitioner verified the website or the association office or the respective colleges, for which the petitioner has given preference, she could have very well found out that the rank list has already been published. Since the learned counsel for the second respondent could not appear on the said date, the interim order to publish the rank list was passed on 25.09.2015. However, four days prior to the order of the High Court, the rank list has been published. Since the learned counsel for the second respondent could not appear on the said date, the interim order to publish the rank list was passed on 25.09.2015. However, four days prior to the order of the High Court, the rank list has been published. (e) The learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that the petitioner in her application has mentioned the third respondent college as her first preference and Anna Poorna Medical College, Salem as her second preference. The petitioner’s third preference was Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research Centre at Coimbatore. Armed with the order of this Court, dated 25.09.2015, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 26.09.2015 to the second respondent herein, requesting him to allot the third respondent medical college or any one of the approved colleges falling within the association. On the same day, a letter was issued by the second respondent to admit the writ petitioner in the third respondent college. However, the third respondent college had refused to admit the writ petitioner on the ground that Medical Council of India has not renewed their recognition for the academic year 2015-16. Hence, the petitioner made a complaint to the first respondent committee. Immediately, the first respondent committee had called for an explanation from the third respondent. The third respondent college on 26.09.2015 had informed the first respondent that they could not admit the students in view of non-renewal of their recognition by Medical Council of India. (f) The learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that on 29.09.2015, the second respondent issued another communication in favour of the writ petitioner to Karpagam Medical College to admit the writ petitioner. The said order was received by the writ petitioner at 6.00 p.m on 29.09.2015. The petitioner had approached the Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research at Coimbatore on 30.09.2015. The said college had refused to admit the student on the ground that the admissions have been closed on 27.09.2015 as per the directions of the first respondent herein. Since the petitioner refused to receive the letter, it was sent by RPAD to the writ petitioner. The said college had refused to admit the student on the ground that the admissions have been closed on 27.09.2015 as per the directions of the first respondent herein. Since the petitioner refused to receive the letter, it was sent by RPAD to the writ petitioner. (g) The learned counsel for the respondents had further contended that thereafter, the petitioner had again approached the second respondent association and sought for a request letter to get herself admitted in the third respondent college as soon as approval from the Medical Council of India is received by them. Such a letter was also issued to them in favour of the writ petitioner. The petitioner had given a representation to the third respondent college on 28.10.2015 requesting them to admit her on the ground that recognition has been granted by the Medical Council of India. However, ultimately for the said academic year 2015-16, no recognition was granted to the third respondent college by the Medical Council and hence, no student was admitted to the said college. (h) The learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that the present contempt petition has been filed on 08.03.2016 alleging violation of the orders of this Court, dated 25.09.2015 in W.P(MD)No.17182 of 2015. (i) According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner was very keen to get herself admitted only in the third respondent college, for which the Medical Council of India had not granted any approval for the academic year 2015-16. Her second choice in the application was Annapoorna Medical College at Salem, which was also not approved by the Medical Council for the academic year 2015-16. Hence, as a last chance, the petitioner was directed to get herself admitted in Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research at Coimbatore. However, the said college had closed their admissions as per the directions of the first respondent committee on 27.09.2015. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the conduct of the Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research at Coimbatore, they should have immediately approached the first respondent committee, which had the power to extend the period till 30th of September. However, the petitioner was continuously insisting to get herself admitted only in the third respondent college, despite being not approved by the Medical Council of India. However, the petitioner was continuously insisting to get herself admitted only in the third respondent college, despite being not approved by the Medical Council of India. (j) The learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that immediately, on receipt of the order from the High Court, the second respondent had issued a letter to the writ petitioner to join the third respondent college as per her wish. When the third respondent college could not admit her, immediately another letter was issued to the writ petitioner to get herself admitted in Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research Centre at Coimbatore. If really the petitioner was aggrieved by her non-admission by the said college, she should have immediately approached the committee for getting extension of admission and joining in some other colleges. However, even after the expiry of the cut off date fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely, 30th of September, the petitioner was writing letters to the third respondent college to get herself admitted on the fond hope that the third respondent college may get their approval renewed. (k) The learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that the second respondent association has not violated any of the orders of this Court much less the order, dated 25.09.2015. As and when the petitioner approached the second respondent, letters have been issued in her favour to the college of her choice. He further contended that the contemnors now arrayed have no personal knowledge, whatsoever about the happenings in the second respondent association. The second respondent association has nominated one Mr.Jayavel as their representative to function along with the representative of the first respondent statutory committee. The rank list has been published after approval from the first respondent committee and the admission was closed by all the colleges as per the directions of the first respondent committee on 27.09.2015. If any one of the colleges had refused to admit the writ petitioner within the said period, she should have approached the first respondent committee alleging violation on the part of the second respondent association. At no point of time, the petitioner has ever approached the first respondent statutory committee alleging violation by the second respondent. The learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that the admissions were closed on 27.09.2015 and reported back to the first respondent committee. At no point of time, the petitioner has ever approached the first respondent statutory committee alleging violation by the second respondent. The learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that the admissions were closed on 27.09.2015 and reported back to the first respondent committee. As per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, all the admissions were closed on 30.09.2015 after verification by the first respondent committee. The present contempt petition has been filed on 08.03.2016 alleging violation of the orders of this Court and for a direction to admit her in the academic year 2015-16. (l) The learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 (1)SCC 101 (Dr.U.N.Bora, Ex.Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another) in paragraph no.8 and 12 are extracted as follows: “8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the “willful” disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature....... 12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is “wilful”. The word “wilful” 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. “Wilful” means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful 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”. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelssly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. Wilful 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”. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelssly, 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....” (m) The learned counsel for the respondents had contended that there is no willful disobedience of the orders of this High Court. As and when the petitioner had approached the second respondent association, letters have been issued in favour of the colleges in the order of preference given by her in the application form. The contemnors now arrayed in the contempt petition have no personal knowledge, whatsoever about the allegations made by the contempt petitioner. Unless personal knowledge is imputed and the petitioner contends that the disobedience of the orders is willful, question of invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this Court would not arise. However, in the explanations submitted by the Secretary of the second respondent, he has expressed his unconditional apology for the situation that has lead to the initiation of contempt proceedings. The apology has been recorded in paragraph no.3 and 24 of the said explanation affidavit. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side in the writ petition as well as in the contempt proceedings. 11. As far as the prayer in the main writ petition is concerned, the petitioner had prayed for a direction to the third respondent college, namely Chennai Medical College Hospital and Research Center to grant admission to the petitioner in the M.B.B.S., course for the academic year 2015-16 according to the merit list prepared by the second respondent. 12. It is an admitted fact that for the academic year 2015-16, Medical Council of India has not granted renewal of recognition to the third respondent college. Hence, the third respondent college has not admitted a single student for the said academic year. 12. It is an admitted fact that for the academic year 2015-16, Medical Council of India has not granted renewal of recognition to the third respondent college. Hence, the third respondent college has not admitted a single student for the said academic year. The third respondent college, in their communication, dated 26.09.2015 to the first respondent statutory authority have informed that they are yet to get renewal and they cannot admit any student for the academic year 2015-16. Hence, the prayer sought for by the writ petitioner in the main writ petition is not maintainable and such a prayer cannot be granted. 13. This Court has passed an interim order on 25.09.2015, directing the second respondent herein to publish the rank list and admit the petitioner in any one of the 12 colleges coming under the purview of the second respondent association. This order was passed after taking note of the fact that the third respondent college could not get renewal of the recognition from Medical Council of India. Armed with the order of this Court, the petitioner has given a representation to the second respondent association on 26.09.2015 expressing her preference to get admitted only in the third respondent college, if the approval is granted or to any one of the approved colleges. Based on the said letter, the second respondent association has issued a letter of admission to the petitioner to join the third respondent college. However, from the conduct of the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner had received the letter from the second respondent association to get herself admitted in the third respondent college on 26.09.2015 without any objection. Fairly, the third respondent college had refused to admit the petitioner on the ground that approval has not been granted by the Medical Council of India. Thereafter, the second respondent association has issued a letter of admission to the petitioner to approach the Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research at Coimbatore. They have refused to admit the petitioner on 30th of September 2015 on the ground that the admissions have been closed on 27.09.2015 due to the directions of the first respondent committee. Again the petitioner had approached the second respondent with a request to admit her in the third respondent college. They have refused to admit the petitioner on 30th of September 2015 on the ground that the admissions have been closed on 27.09.2015 due to the directions of the first respondent committee. Again the petitioner had approached the second respondent with a request to admit her in the third respondent college. Hence, the second respondent association has issued a letter to the third respondent college to admit the petitioner as soon as they receive approval from the Medical Council of India. In the said order, it has been specifically mentioned that order, dated 30.09.2015 directing the petitioner to approach Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences is cancelled. The petitioner has accepted this letter and she was waiting for the approval to be granted to the third respondent college. Again, on 28.10.2015, the petitioner has directly addressed a letter to the third respondent college to admit her. These facts will clearly indicate that the petitioner was interested only in getting herself admitted to the third respondent college and not any other colleges. 14. As rightly contended by the counsel for the respondents, the rank list has been placed for approval before the first respondent statutory committee on 20.09.2015 and it was approved by the first respondent committee. It is not the case of the petitioner that students, whose names were not found in the list approved by the first respondent committee were admitted to the 12 colleges coming under the purview of the second respondent association. No allegations have been made as against the second respondent association for admitting any student outside the approval list of the first respondent, dated 20.09.2015. Hence, I find that there is no willful disobedience on the part of the second respondent association or its members, who are representing their respective colleges. The contempt petition is misconceived and does not deserve any consideration by this Court. 15. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition stands closed. No costs. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.