JUDGMENT

MATHEW, :— This is an application to take proceedings in contempt against the four respondents on the ground that they have disobeyed a judgment passed by this Court on 9-8-1974 in C. A. No. 2232 of 1973.* That judgment was rendered in an appeal from the decision of the High Court of Mysore in a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of certain resolutions passed by the Municipality of Udipi. The High Court quashed time of the resolution impugned in the writ petition but held that the resolution passed by the Municipality allowing the conversion of the Kalyana Mantap-cum-lecture hall in 995 question into a cinema hall was valid and dismissed the writ petition to that extent. The appeal to this Court was directed against that order and respondents 1 to 3 in this application were parties to that appeal.

* reported in AIR 1974 SC 2177

2. This Court found that the resolution allowing the conversion of Kalyana Mantap-cum-lecture hall into a cinema hall was bad for the reason that the conversion contravened the Town Planning Scheme and allowed the appeal. Against the order dated 14-3-1973 granting a licence to third respondent for exhibiting films in the hall in question the petitioner had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petn. No. 755 of 1973) praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the same. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing before the High Court on 27-8-1974, the 3rd respondent applied for adjournment of the case in order to enable him to file a petition in this Court for review of the judgment of this Court. The Court allowed the adjournment and passed an order as follows:

"The Respondent No. 2 (respondent No. 3 here) should not however exhibit the cinema shows in the building in question beyond 5-9-1974, unless SC issues an order permitting them to do so beyond 5-9-1974. The above order is passed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to move the SC to take action against respondent No. 2 for contempt of court and also without prejudice to the powers of the District Magistrate under law."

On 12-8-1974, the petitioner wrote a letter to respondent No. 4 who was then the District Magistrate, enclosing a photostat of a copy of the judgment of this Court and praying for revocation of the licence granted under the Cinematography Act to exhibit films in the hall. On 23-8-1974, the respondent No. 3 applied to the District Magistrate to renew the licence under the Cinematography Act and the District Magistrate granted a renewal of the licence from 2-9-1974 till 5-9-1974. On 23-8-1974, the 1st and 2nd respondents (i. e. Chief Officer and President respectively of Town Municipal Council, Udipi) called for an urgent meeting of the Municipal Council. The Council met and passed a resolution recommending to Government that the Town Planning Scheme may be revoked. The scheme was actually revoked by the Government on 11-4-75.

3. In the petitioner for taking proceedings in contempt the allegation against respondent 1 and 2 was that they called a meeting of the Municipal Council and got a resolution passed recommending to Government the revocation of the Town Planning Scheme, and that they did not issue direction to the 3rd respondent to stop the Exhibition of films in the hall. The case against the 3rd respondent was that he wilfully disobeyed the judgment of this Court by exhibiting films in building which this Court held could not have been converted into a cinema theatre. And as against the 4th respondent the allegation was that even in spite of the fact that a photostat of a copy of the judgment of this Court was given to him, he refused to take necessary action prohibiting the exhibition of films in the Hall.

4. All the respondents have filed counter-affidavits in this Court denying that they have committed any contempt.

5. So far as respondents 1 and 2 are concerned, we do not think that they have committed any contempt in calling a meeting of the Municipal counc