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 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India for non-implementation/non-compliance of the order dated 03.03.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 8/2010. FACTS 2. The facts leading to the adjudication of the instant writ petition being WP(C) No. 8/2010 squealing in the Order dated 03.03.2011 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 and thereafter, the Security Forces occupied the said lands of the petitioners for counter insurgency operations. However no rental compensations were given to the petitioners and as such, they submitted representations for payment of the same but nothing was paid by Respondent Authorities to any of the petitioners. It was stated by the petitioners that few similarly situated land owners were paid compensation and that the authorities in the State Government verified the lands of the petitioners and the same were found genuine and in pursuance thereto, the State Government wrote letter to the Director, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs for sanctioning the assessed amount. In support of the claim for compensation, list of persons whose lands were occupied by Armed Security Forces were annexed for verification but no amount was paid to the petitioners and that the petitioners were constrained to file the instant Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 62/2007. During the said Writ Proceedings, Respondent No. 1 – 4 contended that Ministry of Defence deposited the rental compensation for the period 1998 to 2005 but the said were not paid to the petitioners. It was stated that Respondent No. 5 prepares the list of land owners and the payment was contemplated as per the MOU entered into by the Govt. of India, Govt. of Mizoram and the Mizo National Front in the year 1986 and that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs released an amount of Rs. 14.9 Crore for payment of rental compensation for the period from 1966 to 1986. of India, Govt. of Mizoram and the Mizo National Front in the year 1986 and that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs released an amount of Rs. 14.9 Crore for payment of rental compensation for the period from 1966 to 1986. Post 1986, a Board of officers comprising of the representatives of State Govt., the Army and the defence Estates were constituted and during the year 1992-93, the Board of Officers visited the areas and prepared the map showing the blue print area and it was resolved that the land which are not within the blue print area would be kept outside the purview for payment of rental compensation. The land of the petitioners were found outside the blue print area and as such, no rental compensation was paid after 1986. However the petitioners stated that the Respondents had not annexed the said map and as such, they were kept in dark as to the real picture. 3. Thereafter in response to the letter by the CGC on additional amounts being claimed by land owners for the period, 1966 to 1986, the joint team of officers were stated to have not verified the lands and as such, the said team was directed to furnish details of the said lands but the details were not furnished. In view of the discussions made, the said writ petition was disposed of on 07.01.2009 with the following directions, (a) a joint team of officials of both Union and the State comprising of Director (NE-II), Ministry of Home Affairs or his representative, DEO, Guwahati Circle or his representative, Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Department of Revenue, Concerned DC / Collector to form a team for verification of the land, (b) the said team to furnish details to the appropriate authority for sanction of required fund for the purpose of rental compensation, (c) the spot verification to be completed within a period of three months and the payment to be made in the subsequent three months. 4. In pursuant to the said order dated 07.01.2009, the Govt. of Mizoram constituted a task force for verification of the lands in order to find out as to whether they were occupied by security forces vide notification dated 08.05.2009. 4. In pursuant to the said order dated 07.01.2009, the Govt. of Mizoram constituted a task force for verification of the lands in order to find out as to whether they were occupied by security forces vide notification dated 08.05.2009. On 5.06.2009, 06.06.2009 and on 08.06.2009, verification was conducted by the joint team and an interim report was prepared by which the Assistant Director of Survey, Revenue department was entrusted to carry out the actual survey so that a reliable fresh blue print could be prepared to identify the lands in occupation of the security forces. Thereafter on 06.07.2009, the joint team decided not to accept the map prepared by the Revenue department on grounds of non-availability of proper evidence. Another meeting was held and it was decided that rental compensation may be paid to two writ petitioners along with another on the ground that their lands were found within the blue print area. It be stated here that the Joint team found many areas under the occupation of security forces but the representative of Assam Rifles did not agree with the same and agreed for rental compensation to the land owners whose lands were within the blue print area . As such, there appears difference between areas under the occupation of security forces and the blue print area. In view of the decision in the meeting, three persons were given rental compensation. The others being aggrieved, filed the writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 8 of 2010. After deliberation, this Court vide Order dated 03.03.2011 disposed of the Writ Petition with the following direction, (a) a joint verification team for re-verification of the lands to be constituted in order to find out as to whether the lands of the petitioners falls under the occupation of Armed Forces or not, (b) During verification, the petitioners may also remain present with land documents, (c) the verification may be completed within a period of three months from the date of the order, (d) if the petitioner’s land was found in occupation of security forces, the Respondent Authorities to take step for payment of rental compensation from the date of occupation. 5. 5. Pursuant to the said Order dated 03.03.2011, the joint verification team decided to carry out hi tech total station re-survey of Kawmzawl are to find out the lands under the occupation of the security forces for which required funds would be necessary and as such, the DC wrote to the Govt. of Mizoram, Revenue department for funds. However, the high tech survey could not be carried out but the joint team on verification found out that the lands of all the 5 numbers of petitioners were occupied by security forces during the period 1967 to 31.08.1986. As such, the D.C, wrote to the Govt. of Mizoram, revenue department for assessment of rental charges for the period 01.01.1967 to 31.08.1986 which was accordingly forwarded to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. The Director, Ministry of Home affairs thereafter communicated to the Revenue dept., Govt. of Mizoram to find out as to whether any amount was given during the release of fund in the year 1995. The petitioners thereafter vide letter dated 20.09.2013 to the Secretary, Ministry of Home affairs requested for release of assessed amount to the tune of Rs. 3,08,05,168/- but the same was not paid. The D.C, Lunglei District had also issued certificate on 17.12.2013 certifying that the petitioners who lands were found in possession of security forces were not paid their rental compensation. STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS 6. During the contempt proceedings, the respondent No. 4 i.e., the Director General of Assam Rifles under the Ministry of Home Affairs filed the affidavit-in- opposition on 28.08.2017 wherein, he stated that the joint verification was carried without hi tech equipment and that the state Government was requested to verify the claims afresh which was not done and a certificate was issued. It was further stated that there was no violation of the order much less contempt being committed. The deponent had also tendered unconditional apology for any omission in implementing the direction of the court. 7. The respondent No. 11 i.e. the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, revenue department has filed the affidavit and has stated that the petitioner’s claim was found genuine and payment as per direction may be made. 8. The deponent had also tendered unconditional apology for any omission in implementing the direction of the court. 7. The respondent No. 11 i.e. the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, revenue department has filed the affidavit and has stated that the petitioner’s claim was found genuine and payment as per direction may be made. 8. Respondent No. 10, i.e. the Home Secretary, MHA, North Block, New Delhi by the additional Affidavit had 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. 9 . The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Deputy Secretary to the Ministry of Home affairs in their affidavit-in-opposition filed in the instant contempt proceedings stated that the petitioner’s claims were not found genuine and as such Govt. of Mizoram was requested to inform the petitioners and that the matter needs to be re examined. 10. The respondent No. 5 i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei, Govt. of Mizoram vide its affidavit dated 02.04.21018 had stated that his predecessor had taken steps for complying with the order dated 03.03.2011. SUBMISSIONS 11. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is willful and clear violation and disobedience of the order dated 03.03.2011 to the effect that pursuant to the order, spot verification was conducted by a team and the lands of the petitioners were found under the occupation of the Security Forces and assessment of rent was also prepared. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is willful and clear violation and disobedience of the order dated 03.03.2011 to the effect that pursuant to the order, spot verification was conducted by a team and the lands of the petitioners were found under the occupation of the Security Forces and assessment of rent was also prepared. He further states that the spot verification report was not challenged and neither the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2011.The learned Counsel also held that the internal communication between the Union of India and the State of Mizoram as highlighted in the Affidavit of the Home Secretary cannot be allowed to assail the direction and orders of the Hon’ble Court and that the conduct of the Respondents in their affidavit shows clear, deliberate and intentional failure to implement the Judgment of the Court, thereby undermining the authority and majesty of law. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that none of the Respondents had tendered apology and that it is a fit case for drawing contempt proceeding against the Respondents especially Respondent No. 15. 12. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned CGC appearing for the respondent submits that the writ petition being WP(C) No. 8/2010 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 spot verification was carried out without hi tech equipment and that the minutes were prepared without consulting the Ministry of Home affairs and Assam Rifles. He further submits that upon verification, it was found that the petitioner’s lands were outside the blue print area and as such, no Rental compensation may be paid to the petitioners and that Ministry of Home Affairs requested State of Mizoram to have a th fresh look into the matter vide letter dated 26 December, 2013 and further petitioner No. 17 was paid since his land was found occupied by security forces. He also submits that if any rightful owner has been left out for Rental compensation then he may be paid through proper proceedings. 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 03.03.2011 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 13. 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 bonafide 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. The Joint team found many areas under the occupation of security forces but the representative of Assam Rifles did not agree with the same and agreed for rental compensation to the land owners whose lands were within the blue print area. There appears difference between areas under the occupation of security forces and the blue print area. Paragraph 3.4 of the meeting minutes dated 17.07.2009 indicated as follows:- “In this connection it may be mentioned that the occupied area of defence forces since insurgency was verified with the help of previous approved blue print indicating the occupied area of defence forces as 54.33 Acres only. Paragraph 3.4 of the meeting minutes dated 17.07.2009 indicated as follows:- “In this connection it may be mentioned that the occupied area of defence forces since insurgency was verified with the help of previous approved blue print indicating the occupied area of defence forces as 54.33 Acres only. Moreover members of the task force from 40 Bn Assam Rifles made it clear that they could not approve any area larger than the approved Blue Print as it was approved by the competent authority. But if reliable and genuine documents can be shown and produced, it may be reviewed and re verified late, they added. It means there is no any extension of defence land from the previous map which the petitioner claimed that it was wrong. However it was found even during spot verification that some land presently occupied by 40 Bn. Assam Rifles falls outside the occupied area for security force as per this approved map, for example : Lalrothangi’s, D/O Lalsawmliana Chanmari, Lunglei land falls within the firing range although her land is excluded from the occupied area of Security Force as per the approved map.” 14. In response to the said minutes, only three persons were allowed land compensation and as such, the writ petitioners filed the Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 8 of 2010 aggrieved by the decision of the task force in restricting their verification of lands only to areas within the blue print made in 1992-93. The direction in the Order dated 03.03.2011 was for a spot verification by the task force in order to find out as to whether the land of the petitioner’s were occupied by the security forces and not as to whether the lands falls within the blue print area. 15. 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. 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 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 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. 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. (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. (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. 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 SCC 307 ]. 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.” 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 18. 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. 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 2011 and till date the respondents has been filing one affidavit after another with the same grounds that the land of the petitioners do not fall within the blue print area 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 except Respondent No. 4, the then Director General of Assam Rifles who had tendered so-called unconditional apology for any omission in implementing the direction of the court. Else the 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. 19. This Court in Priya Gupta and Anr. v. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/1093/2012 : (2013) 11 SCC404 , held that: 7. Tendering an apology is not a satisfactory way of resolving contempt proceedings. An apology tendered at the very initial stage of the proceedings being bona fide and preferably unconditional would normally persuade the court to accept such apology, if this would not leave a serious scar on the dignity/authority of the court and interfere with the administration of justice under the orders of the Court. 8. "Bona fide" is an expression which has to be examined in the context of a given case. It cannot be understood in the abstract. 8. "Bona fide" is an expression which has to be examined in the context of a given case. It cannot be understood in the abstract. The attendant circumstances, behaviour of the contemnor and the remorse or regret on his part are some of the relevant considerations which would weigh with the Court in deciding such an issue. Where, persistently, a person has attempted to overreach the process of Court and has persisted with the illegal act done in willful violation to the orders of the Court, it will be difficult for the Court to accept unconditional apology even if it is made at the threshold of the proceedings. It is not necessary for us to examine in any greater detail the factual matrix of the case since the disobedience, manipulation of procedure and violation of the Schedule prescribed under the orders of the Court is an admitted position. All that we have to examine is whether the apology tendered is bona fide when examined in the light of the attendant circumstances and whether it will be in the interest of justice to accept the same. 9. The facts which will weigh with the Court while considering acceptance of an apology are the contemptuous conduct, the extent to which the order of the Court has been violated, irresponsible acts on the part of the contemnor and the degree of interference in the administration of justice, which thereby cause prejudice to other parties. An apology tendered, even at the outset, has to be bona fide and should be demonstrative of repentance and sincere regret on the part of the contemnor, lest the administration of justice be crudely interfered with by a person with impunity. The basic ingredients of the Rule of law have to be enforced, whatever be the consequence and all persons are under a fundamental duty to maintain the Rule of law. An apology which is not bona fide and has been tendered to truncate the process of law with the ulterior motive of escaping the consequences of such flagrant violation of orders of the court and causes discernible disrespect to the course of administration of justice, cannot be permitted. The court has to draw a balance between cases where tendering of an apology is sufficient, and cases where it is necessary to inflict punishment on the contemnor. The court has to draw a balance between cases where tendering of an apology is sufficient, and cases where it is necessary to inflict punishment on the contemnor. An attempt to circumvent the orders of the court is derogatory to the very dignity of the court and administration of justice. A person who attempts to salvage himself by showing ignorance of the court's order, of which he quite clearly had the knowledge, would again be an attempt on his part to circumvent the process of law. Tendering a justification would be inconsistent with the concept of an apology. An apology which is neither sincere nor satisfactory and is not made at the appropriate stage may not provide sufficient grounds to the court for the acceptance of the same. It is also an accepted principle that one who commits intentional violations must also be aware of the consequences of the same. One who tenders an unqualified apology would normally not render justification for the contemptuous conduct. In any case, tendering of an apology is a weapon of defence to purge the guilt of offence by the contemnor. It is not intended to operate as a universal panacea to frustrate the action in law, as the fundamental principle is that Rule of law and dignity of the court must prevail.” 20. Further in the case of Sevakram reported in MANU/GJ/0477/1999 : 1999 Supreme(Guj) 423 , it was held that an apology neither purges nor washes away the act of contempt and at best it is a mitigating circumstance while considering the consequential order following finding of contempt having been committed. The relevant portion is produced hereunder: 46. The various decisions referred to by both parties need not detain us for long inasmuch as there is no distinction on principle in the decided cases. An apology is not a weapon of defence. Apology neither purges nor washes away an act of contempt. It is at best a mitigating circumstance while considering the consequential orders to be made, once a person is found to have committed Contempt of Court, civil or criminal. It is a factor relevant to be considered while devising the final order to be made against the contemner. An apology can only be considered which is in real sense remorseful and to the satisfaction of the Court as a contrition by the Respondents. It is a factor relevant to be considered while devising the final order to be made against the contemner. An apology can only be considered which is in real sense remorseful and to the satisfaction of the Court as a contrition by the Respondents. Ordinarily, belated apologies are considered to be offered more out of fear of punishment than with a sense of contrition. But merely because the apology has been tendered, not at the first instance, but at a later stage, by itself cannot be a ground for not considering it. Had it been so, proviso to Section 12 which makes it possible even after sentence of punishment has been made, to remit the same on considering the apology given thereafter. In short, whether an apology tendered at any stage of the proceedings is to be considered as mitigating circumstances or not depends on facts and circumstances of that case and that principle is not inhibited by any precedent. The precedents serve as guidelines.” 21. It is noticed in the instant case that apology tendered only by Respondent No. 4 is a lame excuse on its part. It was nothing but a gamble on the part of the said Respondent. Having said that the petitioners are not entitled for compensation on the ground that their lands do not fall within the blue print area whereas the direction was to pay them if their lands are found to be under the occupation of security forces on spot verification, clearly shows that the apology was merely an excuse. The Order dated 03.03.2011 was with the direction that respondents should pay 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. There is a vast difference between the two. 22. 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.” 23. 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.” 24. In view of the discussions made above, this Court holds as under:- (i) Respondent No. 10 (Mr. Ajay Kumar Bhalla, Home Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi), 13 (Lt. General P.C. Nair, The Director General, Assam Rifles, Shillong C/o 99 APO) and 15 (Mr. Govind Mohan, Home Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi) are guilty of contempt for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order dated 03.03.2011 passed in W.P. (C) No. 8 of 2010. (ii) Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) is imposed as Costs on Respondents No. 10, 13, 15 and in lieu of sentencing them to imprisonment, this Court finds it fit to further direct them to pay fine of Rs. (ii) Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) is imposed as Costs on Respondents No. 10, 13, 15 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 03.03.2011 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. 25. In the result, the instant Contempt petition is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove.