JUDGMENT : SHAMIMA JAHAN, J. This is an application under Rule 9 of the Contempt of Court (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1997 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non- implementation/non-compliance of the order dated 30.04.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 72/2013 as well as the order dated 29.06.2015 passed in Interlocutory Application being IA No. 2/2015. FACTS 2. The facts leading to the adjudication of the instant writ petition being WP(C) No. 72/2013 squealing in the Order dated 30.04.014 are as follows. The petitioners in the said writ petition were the land owners of their private lands in Kawmzawl area which falls under the Pukpui Village Council of Lunglei District, Mizoram. In the year 1966, the Security Forces occupied the said lands of the petitioners for counter insurgency operations. The said lands were initially occupied by the Indian Army and thereafter, by the Assam Rifles and as result, the petitioners were denied their access to the said land and also, their right to possess, enjoy and use their own lands. The lands are covered by the respective certificates and Periodic Patta i.e., in respect of petitioner No. 1, the date of Village Council Pass was issued on 15.08.1962 vide Periodic Patta No. 208603/10/10 of 2006, in respect of petitioner No. 2, the date of Village Council Pass was issued on 23.08.1962 vide Periodic Patta No. 208603/10/96 of 2006 and in respect of petitioner No. 3, the date of Village Council Pass was issued on 25.03.1962 vide Periodic Patta No. 208603/10/164 of 2009. 3. Thereafter, in the year 1986 the Govt. of India, Govt. of Mizoram and the Mizo National Front entered into a Memorandum of Settlement by which it was agreed that Rental compensation would be paid to the land owners in respect of the land occupied by the Security Forces. However, no Rental compensation were paid to the petitioners till the filing of the writ petition and aggrieved thereby, many persons similarly situated approached the High Court and the Court directed on many occasions to constitute a joint verification team in order to verify the claim of the petitioners and to thereafter pay Rental compensation to them. When the instant petition was taken up for hearing, the said orders passed by the High Court allowing Rental compensation to similarly situated land owners were placed by the counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 4. When the instant petition was taken up for hearing, the said orders passed by the High Court allowing Rental compensation to similarly situated land owners were placed by the counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 4. The learned counsel for the Central Government had also appeared during the writ proceedings and submitted that verification of the lands of the petitioners had already been done and assessment was also under process. The Central Government counsel also submitted that no further verification was required. In view of the same although the order of the learned Single Judge reflects that the Government counsel wanted some time but since the counsel was given opportunity a number of times to file counter affidavit but the same was not adhered to and more so on the submissions made by the counsel for the Central Government that verification was already done, no further time was allowed by this Court. In view of the submissions made by the counsels and in view of the settled facts, this Court vide order dated30.04.2014 had given the following directions: (1) The respondents were directed to make a spot verification to ascertain as to whether the petitioners lands are in occupation of the Army/Para-military/Assam Rifles. (2) The joint verification of the land of the petitioners was directed to be done by a Committee consisting of (a) the Director, Northeast-II, Ministry of Home Affairs or his representatives (b) the Defence Estate Officer (DEO), Guwahati Circle, Ministry of Defence or his representatives (c) Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Department of Land Revenue & Settlement or his representatives (d) Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei District, Mizoram (e) the Commandant of Army Unit/Para-military Forces occupying the land or his representatives, if any (f) the petitioners and his representatives, with a further direction that the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei District Mizoram shall be the Coordinating authority. (3) The joint verification team so constituted shall verify the land of the petitioners purportedly under the occupation of the Army/Paramilitary Forces/Assam Rifles. (4) Thereafter, the said team was directed to furnish all details to the appropriate authorities for assessment, computation of the Rental compensation and thereafter, the payment to be made. (5) The said exercise of spot verification is directed to be completed within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of the order by Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei District, Mizoram. (5) The said exercise of spot verification is directed to be completed within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of the order by Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei District, Mizoram. (6) The process of computation/assessment was further directed to be completed within two (2) months and then the respondents to pay the said Rental compensation to the petitioners within a period of three (3) months. The said directions however were made with a rider that the same may be complied with only if the lands of the petitioners are found in occupation of Army/Paramilitary Forces/Assam Rifles. It is also directed that if the lands are already verified as submitted by the Central Government counsel, no further spot verification would be required. It is also directed that the process of assessment and payment should be completed as expeditiously as possible and not later than five (5) months from the date of passing of the order. With the above directions, the said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.04.2014. It is this order that is alleged to have been not complied with by the respondent authorities, which has led to the filing of the instant contempt petition. 5. In pursuant to the order dated 30.04.2014, the petitioners communicated the said order to the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei District, Mizoram vide representation dated 06.05.2014 and the same was received on 07.05.2014 by said Respondent No. 6 i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Lunglei District. 6. Thereafter, an application for extension of time to comply with the aforesaid order dated 30.04.2014 was filed by the respondents before this Hon’ble High Court and the said application was registered and numbered as I.A No. 2/2015, in disposed of Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 72 of 2013. By the said application, the learned CGC prayed that another six (6) months further time may be granted to the respondent authorities to complete the process of verification and to comply with the order dated 30.04.2014. The learned CGC also prayed that a direction should be issued to the Govt. of Mizoram to rectify the objections raised by the representatives of Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India. The said rectification was prayed for, for the reasons that the land owners were converting their land passes into Periodic Patta for the purpose of claiming land compensation. The learned CGC also prayed that a direction should be issued to the Govt. of Mizoram to rectify the objections raised by the representatives of Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India. The said rectification was prayed for, for the reasons that the land owners were converting their land passes into Periodic Patta for the purpose of claiming land compensation. The said issue was adjudicated by the learned Court and it was found out that there being no bar for conversion of land passes into Periodic Patta, the same cannot be taken as a ground for non-payment of Rental compensation to the petitioners. It was further observed that since the order dated 30.04.2014 provided for only verification of the land for payment of Rental compensation, the conversion of land passes into Periodic Patta could not be made a subject matter in the said Interlocutory Application and as such, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the Central Government was rejected more so on the ground that the same being an internal matter between the applicants and the State Government. The learned Single Judge further took note of the letter dated 30.08.2014 issued by the Settlement Officer, Lunglei District by which it was intimated that a joint verification team had conducted a meeting on 23.07.2014 at 3 PM. However, it be stated here that in the said meeting, apart from the representatives of DEO, Guwahati Circle, all other authorities had put their signatures in the said meeting. The Minutes of the said meeting signed by all members of the said team showed that assessment of Rental compensation has been done and the same was required to be paid to the land owners by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the same was forwarded for further necessary action. It was also observed in the order that there was no requirement of any such verification of the land in question. Finally, vide order dated 29.06.2015, the learned Single Judge allowed additional six (6) months time with effect from the date of the order for compliance of the order dated 30.04.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 72/2013. STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS 7. Finally, vide order dated 29.06.2015, the learned Single Judge allowed additional six (6) months time with effect from the date of the order for compliance of the order dated 30.04.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 72/2013. STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS 7. During the contempt proceedings, the respondent No. 8 i.e., the Commandant,1st Battalion, Assam Rifles under the Ministry of Home Affairs filed the affidavit-in- opposition on 10.08.2016 wherein, he stated that the joint verification committee was constituted on 21.05.2014 and held a meeting on 23.07.2014. He further stated that the representatives of the Ministry of Home Affairs raised certain objections viz., the petitioners lands are not in occupation of Security Forces and that it is outside the blue print area and also that the DEO, Guwahati should furnish a certificate as to whether their lands were actually occupied by the Security Forces during the period from 1966 – 1986 or not. It was also stated that if the lands were actually occupied during the said period by the Security Forces then again a joint spot verification should be conducted. It was also raised that the concerned authority has to find out as to whether any compensation were paid to the petitioners earlier out of the funds released in the year 1995 and thereafter. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was also stated that DEO vide its letter dated 14.10.2014 intimated that there was no record map of occupied areas before 1986 and that the first map of area of occupation were prepared in the year 1993. It was also stated that the blue print map prepared is the basis for payment of rental compensation to the land owners and any land outside the said blue print area cannot be considered for payment of Rental compensation. On the basis of the said DEO clarification, the Govt. of Mizoram was also informed vide letter dated 10.12.2014 that the lands of the petitioners falls outside the blue print area and hence, their claim for compensation cannot be entertained. It is however stated therein that the Govt. of Mizoram without considering the objections raised by the DEO submitted rental assessment claims to the petitioners. It was also stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the Govt. of Mizoram may apprise the Court about the said fact that the land of the petitioners falls outside the blue print area. It is however stated therein that the Govt. of Mizoram without considering the objections raised by the DEO submitted rental assessment claims to the petitioners. It was also stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the Govt. of Mizoram may apprise the Court about the said fact that the land of the petitioners falls outside the blue print area. However, the said facts was not placed before the Court and only extension of time for complying with the order dated 30.04.2014 was sought for and a period of six (6) months extension was granted as stated above. 8. A further point was raised in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the Village Council has no power to grant pass for agricultural purpose and that the Village Council is competent to allot sites within its jurisdiction only for residential and other non-agricultural purposes. It is stated that the Village Council cannot issue any Garden Pass or Agricultural Pass to any person under any law and as such, it is contended that the person having lands covered by Village Council Pass for agricultural purpose are not entitled for compensation. However, the said point was rejected to by the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 29.06.2015 as stated above. As such, it is seen that two (2) points were raised by respondent No. 8. One being the objections raised by the representatives of the DEO that prior to 1986, there was no map and after 1993, the map came into existence which showed that the area owned by the petitioners are outside the blue print area and as such, no compensation could be claimed by the petitioners. The said point was not raised before the writ court neither it was placed when extension of time was sought for. Secondly, the other point that the Village Council cannot issue Pass for agricultural purpose to the petitioners was also not raised before the writ court and now when directions were given for compliance of the order, the respondents cannot turn around and take these grounds and as such, they are rightly being rejected by the Hon’ble Single Judge in its order dated 26.09.2015. 9. 9. The respondent No. 11 i.e. the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block has filed the additional affidavit and has stated similarly as that of respondent No. 8 and has raised the objection furnished by the DEO, Guwahati Circle inasmuch as, that the said authority should furnish a certificate as to whether the lands owned by the petitioners were occupied by the Security Forces during the period 1966 – 1986 and if the lands were actually occupied by the Security Forces, a joint spot verification may be conducted and also, if the petitioners are paid out of the funds released in the year 1995, they may not be again paid the Rental compensation. The said respondents had also stated that prior to 1986, there was no map and that the first map came into existence in 1993 and the map so prepared showed that the land of the petitioners were outside the blue print area and as such, no compensation can be claimed by the petitioners. The said respondents had also raised the objection with regard to the alleged inability of the Village Council to issues passes for agricultural purposes as raised by the respondent No. 8 as stated above. 10 . The respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 7 have also raised similar objections in their affidavit-in-opposition filed in the instant contempt proceedings. The respondent No. 1 in its affidavit-in-opposition filed on 18.07.2016 apart from taking the same grounds as mentioned above had further raised an additional ground that the verification report does not discuss any evidence and that it merely presumes that the land of the petitioners might have been occupied by the Security Forces. He further stated that the Govt. of Mizoram vide its letter dated 12.01.2015 informed that the petitioners were granted Periodic Patta in the year 2006 and the Govt. of Mizoram had recommended immediate release of required amount of Rs. 1.05 Crore as Rental compensation as per the assessment of the joint verification team. It was stated that the Govt. of Mizoram had released the amount without taking into account the objections raised by the DEO as mentioned above. 11. The respondent No. 6 i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei, Govt. of Mizoram had recommended immediate release of required amount of Rs. 1.05 Crore as Rental compensation as per the assessment of the joint verification team. It was stated that the Govt. of Mizoram had released the amount without taking into account the objections raised by the DEO as mentioned above. 11. The respondent No. 6 i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei, Govt. of Mizoram vide its affidavit dated 06.05.2016 had stated that the joint verification team convened its meeting on 04.07.2014 on which date, however the meeting could not be conducted due to the absence of DEO and the next meeting was re-scheduled on 23.07.2014 and that on the said day, the assessment of Rental compensation in respect of petitioners for the period from 01.01.1967 – 31.08.1986 was prepared and was submitted to the Government along with the copy of the meeting minutes. However, the said respondent also states that as per the instruction of the Government vide letter dated 29.08.2014, the certificate of non-payment of Rental compensation was sent to the Govt. of Mizoram on 09.09.2015. 12. Similarly, respondent No. 9 who is the Deputy Secretary (Northeast) in the Ministry of Home Affairs had taken similar grounds to the effect the objections raised by the DEO as well as the alleged inability of the Village Council to issue passes. SUBMISSIONS 13. Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is willful and clear violation and disobedience of the order dated 30.04.2014 to the effect that in the said order or more so during the writ proceeding, the counsel for the Central Government had stated that the verification of land was already done and there was no need for further verification of the said land and as such, only the assessment of the rental compensation and the payment was required to be done. The learned Single Judge had ordered for a spot verification by a committee consisting of various representatives and the same was also done during July, 2014. He also submits that after the meeting of the joint verification team, it was directed that details were supposed to be furnished to the appropriate authorities for assessment and computation of the Rental compensation and for making payment thereafter. He submits that the Govt. of Mizoram had assessed the amount but the same was not paid to the petitioners for reasons best known to the respondent authorities. He submits that the Govt. of Mizoram had assessed the amount but the same was not paid to the petitioners for reasons best known to the respondent authorities. He further submits that during the hearing of the Interlocutory Application, filed for extension of time for compliance of the said order dated 30.04.2014, none of the grounds raised during the contempt proceedings were argued by the counsels and only time was sought for, for compliance of the same. The two (2) grounds that the land owners were converting their land passes into Periodic Patta and few objections raised by the Ministry of Home Affairs were rejected by the learned Single Judge while extending the time for compliance of the said order and as such, he submits that the said grounds cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage or at any later stage. As such, he submits that there is willful violation of the order dated 30.04.2014 and necessary contempt proceedings may be drawn against the respondents. To substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Prithawi Nath Ram vs.State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 261 . 14. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned CGC appearing for the respondent submits that the writ petition being WP(C) No. 72/2013 was disposed of with a direction that the respondents may conduct a spot verification in order to find out as to whether the petitioner’s lands were in occupation of the Army/Paramilitary Forces/Assam Rifles within the said period of time and if it is found that the lands were in occupation of the said authorities, the compensation may be granted. He submits that the meeting of the joint verification committee was conducted on 23.07.2014 and a number of objections were raised on behalf of the DEO. He submits that the representative of the DEO has raised objection that the lands of the petitioner’s falls outside the blue print area and as such, no Rental compensation may be paid to the petitioners. He also submits that if any rightful owner has been left out for Rental compensation then he may be paid through proper proceedings. He further submitted that the land passes issued by the Village Council cannot be considered as valid documents for Rental compensation as there was no provision in Lushai Hills District (House Site) Act, 1953. He also submits that if any rightful owner has been left out for Rental compensation then he may be paid through proper proceedings. He further submitted that the land passes issued by the Village Council cannot be considered as valid documents for Rental compensation as there was no provision in Lushai Hills District (House Site) Act, 1953. In view of the same, he submits that the direction of the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 30.04.2014 has been complied with by passing a speaking order dated 03.06.2016. He further submits that the contempt petition is not maintainable in view of the said facts. To substantiate his arguments, he relied on the judgment of Ram Kishan Vs. Tarun Bajaj, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 204 . ANALYSIS 15. For holding respondents for contempt, it has to be shown that there has been willful disobedience of the judgment or order of the court. Power to punish for contempt is to be exercised when there is clear violation of the court’s order. The court of record under the Constitution of India has the inherent power to punish such violation to uphold the administration of justice. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and requires proof of deliberate, intentional disobedience not mere negligence or bona fide error. The Supreme Court of India emphasizes that contempt proceedings must demonstrate contumacious conduct ensuring that the court’s authorities are not undermined. Willful disobedience requires clear evidence of deliberate intent to defy the order not just non-compliance due to oversight or impossibility. In the instant case, it is seen that the counsel appearing for the Central Government initially did not give proper interest to the grievances of the petitioners during the writ proceedings as they had taken time on a number of occasions to file counter affidavit and when the matter was finally taken up, the counsel again prayed for some time. However, the same was not allowed for the ends of justice. It is also seen that the counsel representing the Central Government had agreed that spot verification was already done and there was no need for any further verification and was agreeable for the assessment and payment of the compensation to the bona fide land owners. However, the same was not allowed for the ends of justice. It is also seen that the counsel representing the Central Government had agreed that spot verification was already done and there was no need for any further verification and was agreeable for the assessment and payment of the compensation to the bona fide land owners. The court considered the said submissions but again ordered that if required, a spot verification may be conducted by constituting the committee members and it was also seen that a meeting was convened and extension for compliance of the said order was prayed for which was allowed. 16. In the said extension, two (2) points were raised which could not have been the subject matter for the Interlocutory Application meant for extension of the time for complying with the order dated 30.04.2014 and as such, six (6) months further time was given to comply with the said order vide order dated 29.06.2015 by rejecting both the objections. Further, the letter dated 10.12.2014 which the respondent authorities have relied on to show that there was no willful disobedience of the order dated 30.04.2014 was not placed before the writ court during the hearing of the Interlocutory Application. This shows that there was utter disregard to the grievance of the petitioners and to the Court’s orders. It is no res integra that court must exercise contempt powers with utmost care and caution so as to avoid misuse and should prioritize the larger interest of the society and proper administration of justice. The balance has to be maintained. It is a settled position that there has to be a deliberate violation of the order. Although in the order dated 30.04.2014, it is provided that compensation has to be given to the petitioners only if their lands are found in occupation of the Security Forces. However, the submissions of the counsels appearing for the Central Government demonstrates that verification was already done, which amply proves that the said lands were under the occupation of the Security Forces and on the basis of the same, the Govt. of Mizoram had assessed and had released an amount of Rs. However, the submissions of the counsels appearing for the Central Government demonstrates that verification was already done, which amply proves that the said lands were under the occupation of the Security Forces and on the basis of the same, the Govt. of Mizoram had assessed and had released an amount of Rs. 1.05 Crore for payment to the petitioners and later, turning around and saying that the said lands were outside the blue print area that too, which had come post 1993 cannot be a ground for rejection of Rental compensation to the petitioners. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions had observed the extent of violation of orders that would lead to willful and deliberate disobedience. 17. The Apex Court had observed in the following terms:- “The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. Since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. The power to punish for contempt of courts is a special power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind then criticisms which are sometimes leveled against the courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction "that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute" in its entirety can be avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts." Further in a number of decisions, it is held as follows: (1) In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. , reported in AIR1999 SC 3215, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience particularly when the attention of the person is drawn to the court’s orders and its implications. It was also observed that willful would exclude casual, incidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with terms of the order. (2) In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. It was also observed that willful would exclude casual, incidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with terms of the order. (2) In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd.reported in AIR 1996 SC 2005 , it was held that while holding the contemnor liable for punishment, the court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of its orders. (3) In TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1995) 4 SCC 1 , the Apex Court held that although the order was clear, the officers distorted the interpretation of the same and as such, they were held for contempt. Similar is the instant case. (4) In All Bengal Excise Licensees Association vs. Raghabendra Singh and Ors. , reported in (2007) 11 SCC 374 , it was held as follows:- “All the respondent Nos. 1-4 are senior and experienced officers and must be presumed to know that under the constitutional scheme of this country, orders of the High Court have to be obeyed implicitly and that orders of this Court - for that matter any Court should not be trifled with. We have already found hereinabove that they have acted deliberately to subvert the orders of the High Court evidently. It is equally necessary to erase an impression which appears to be gaining ground that the mantra of unconditional apology is a complete answer to violations and infractions of the orders of the High Court or of this Court. We, therefore hold them guilty of contempt of Court and do hereby censure their conduct. Though a copy of this order could be sent which shall form part of the annual confidential record of service of each of the said officers, we refrain from doing so by taking a lenient view of the matter considering the future prospects of the officers. As already stated, the officers shall not indulge in any adventurous act and strictly obey the orders passed by the Courts of law. The civil appeal stands allowed. Though this is a fit case for awarding exemplary costs, again taking a lenient view, we say no costs.” (5) In Balwantbhai Samabhai Bhandari Vs. Hiralal Samabhai Contractor reported in (2023) 17 SCC 545 , the Apex Court had further held as follows:- “PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF CONTEMPT JURISDICTION 40. The civil appeal stands allowed. Though this is a fit case for awarding exemplary costs, again taking a lenient view, we say no costs.” (5) In Balwantbhai Samabhai Bhandari Vs. Hiralal Samabhai Contractor reported in (2023) 17 SCC 545 , the Apex Court had further held as follows:- “PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF CONTEMPT JURISDICTION 40. The object of the discipline enforced by the court in case of contempt of court is not to vindicate the dignity of the court or the person of the Judge, but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice. 41. Any interference with the course of justice is an affront to the majesty of law and the conduct of interference is punishable as contempt of court. Public interest demands that there should be no interference with the judicial process, and the effect of the judicial decision should not be pre-empted or circumvented. (Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0412/1988 : (1988) 4 SCC 592 ). 42. If a party, who is fully in the know of the judgment/order of the Court, is conscious and aware of the consequences and implications of the order of the Court, acts in violation thereof, it must be held that disobedience is willful. To establish contempt of court, it is sufficient to prove that the conduct was willful, and that the contemnor knew of all the facts which made it a breach of the undertaking. 43. The following conditions must be satisfied before a person can be held to have committed civil contempt: (i) there must be a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court; (ii) there must be disobedience to such judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court; and (iii) such disobedience of the judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court must be willful. [Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and Anr. v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/3163/2008 : (2008) 14 SCC 561 ] 44. It behoves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible, making all allowances for errors of judgment. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct, not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished. [Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and Anr. v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/3163/2008 : (2008) 14 SCC 561 ] 44. It behoves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible, making all allowances for errors of judgment. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct, not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished. Punishment under the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority. Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and the standard of proof is the same as in other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor is entitled to the protection of all safeguards/rights, including benefit of doubt. [Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi reported in MANU/SC/1111/2011 : (2012) 4 SCC307]. 45. The sanctity to judicial proceedings is paramount to a society governed by law. Otherwise, the very edifice of democracy breaks and anarchy reigns. The Act 1971 is intended to correct a person deviating from the norm and trying to breach the law/assuming law on to himself. It intends to secure confidence of the people in the administration of justice by disciplining those erring in disobeying the orders of the Court/undertaking given to court.” Further in the said decision, the Apex Court had also observed about willful disobedience in the following terms:- “WHAT IS WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE? 50. In order to decide whether the Appellants are guilty of civil contempt, we would like to refer to Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under: 2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- xxx xxx xxx (b) "civil contempt" means 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; 51. The Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, at page 1599, defines "willful" as hereunder: Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary; knowingly; deliberate. Intending the result which actually comes to pass; designed; intentional; purposeful; not accidental or involuntary. Premeditated; malicious; done with evil intent, or with a bad motive or purpose, or with indifference to the natural consequences; unlawful; without legal justification. Intending the result which actually comes to pass; designed; intentional; purposeful; not accidental or involuntary. Premeditated; malicious; done with evil intent, or with a bad motive or purpose, or with indifference to the natural consequences; unlawful; without legal justification. An act or omission is "willfully" done, if done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done; that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It is a word of many meanings, with its construction often influenced by its context. In civil actions, the word (willfully) often denotes an act which is intentional, or knowing, or voluntary, as distinguished from accidental. But when used in a criminal context it generally means an act done with a bad purpose; without justifiable excuse; stubbornly, obstinately, perversely.” 18. The aforesaid decisions makes it clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had reiterated that for a contempt to be established, the following conditions must be adhered to:- (1) The order must be specific and capable of execution. (2) The alleged contemnor must have knowledge of the order. (3) There should be no plea of inability or ambiguity. (4) There should be deliberate refusal without justification. 19. It is seen that the respondents in their affidavits have raised that from 1966- 1986 there was no map and there was no information, proper in nature as to whether the lands of the petitioners were under the occupation of the Security Forces and that in 1993, the map came into existence and it was noticed that the lands of the petitioners were placed outside the blue print area. They have also stated that if any money is paid out of the funds paid in 1995, the petitioners may not be paid any more of the compensation. It is noticed that the respondents have not clearly stated as to the period when the lands of the petitioners were under the occupation of the Security Forces and what was the actual blue print area. 20. It be stated here that Blue Print area implies a planned or foundational security zone. It further implies a strategic area for operational control forces like base parameters for ground defense. It also outlines procurement of security equipment. 20. It be stated here that Blue Print area implies a planned or foundational security zone. It further implies a strategic area for operational control forces like base parameters for ground defense. It also outlines procurement of security equipment. It does not provide any specific area under occupation of security forces. As such, the ground taken that the petitioner’s land does not fall within the blue print area is baseless and the same was only with the sole intention to avoid paying rental compensation to the petitioners. The area under the occupation of Security Forces and the blue print area are different. In the analogous Contempt Petition where spot verification was done, it was found out that area under the occupation of Security Forces was a large area and the blue print area was a small one. The Order dated 30.04.2014 was directed for payment of rental compensation to the land owners whose land was occupied by Security Forces/Army/Assam Rifles and not the area occupied as blue print area. It is as such noticed that the respondents have not given their anxious consideration to the grievance of the petitioners and to the court’s orders and it also cannot be said that they are casual. The order was passed in the year 2014 and the extension was granted in the year 2015 and till date the respondents has been filing one affidavit after another with the same grounds and with the same letter i.e., letter dated 10.12.2014 and till date they have not paid the land compensation to the petitioners. This shows their deliberate disobedience of the order. It be also stated here that the Respondent Authorities have not tendered apology in the instant case and their only primary ground as aforesaid is that the petitioner’s land do not fall within the blue print area which is on the face of it is baseless. 21. Section 12 of the Contempt of Court’s Act is reproduced below:- “(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Explanation. Explanation. - An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit. (4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer. Explanation. Explanation. - For the purposes of sub-sections (4) and (5), - (a) company means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) director, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.” 22. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India reported in MANU/SC/0291/1998 had observed that under the above provision, the contemnor may be punished (a) with simple imprisonment by detention in a civil prison, (b) with fine, (c) with both. A bare perusal of the same reveals that the Act provides that in case of civil contempt, a sentence of fine alone should be imposed except where the court considers that the ends of justice requires for passing of a sentence of imprisonment also. The said proposition has been dealt with by the Apex Court in Pushpaben Vs. Narandas reported in (1979) 2 SCC 394 , wherein it was held as under:- “6. A close and careful interpretation of the extracted Section leaves no room for doubt that the legislature intended that a sentence of fine alone should be imposed in normal circumstances. The statute, however, confers special power on the Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment if it thinks that ends of justice so require. Thus before a Court passes the extreme sentence of imprisonment, it must give special reasons after a proper application of its mind that a sentence of imprisonment alone is called for in a particular situation. Thus, the sentence of imprisonment is an exception while sentence of fine is the rule.” 23. In view of the discussions made above, this Court holds as under:- (i) Respondent No. 4 (Smt. Sarmistha Maitra, Defence Estate Officer (In- Charge), Guwahati Circle, Silphukhuri, Guwahati – 781003, Assam), 7 (Sh.Navdee Kadian, Commandant 28th Assam Rifles, Lunglei, Mizoram), 11 Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla, Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110001, 12 (Sh. A.K. Dhyani, Director (NE), Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi - 110001), 16 (Sh. Govind Mohan, Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110001, 12 (Sh. A.K. Dhyani, Director (NE), Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi - 110001), 16 (Sh. Govind Mohan, Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110001) are guilty of contempt for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order dated 30.04.2014 passed in W.P. (C) No. 72 of 2013 as well as Order dated 29.06.2015 passed in Interlocutory Application being I.A No. 2/2015. (ii) Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) is imposed as Costs on Respondents No. 4, 7, 11, 12, 16 and in lieu of sentencing them to imprisonment, this Court finds it fit to further direct them to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and the amount of fine to be paid within a period of three weeks from the date of the order and in default thereof to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. (iii) It is further directed that the Respondent authorities shall comply with all the directions given in the order dated 30.04.2014 within a period of two months from the date of the order. (iv) It is also directed that although a copy of this order could be sent for making it a part of the annual confidential record of service of each of the said officers, this Court however, refrain from doing so by taking a lenient view of the matter considering the future prospects of the officers. As already stated, the officers shall not indulge in any adventurous act and strictly obey the orders passed by the Courts of law. 24. In the result, the instant Contempt petition is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove.