An apology must be sought at the earliest opportunity and with genuine contrition, and a belated apology without remorse cannot be accepted as a defense in contempt proceedings.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)

1. Vide judgment dated 19.01.2012, respondent nos.2 to 6 have been found guilty of contempt. The matter is placed today before me for considering whether or not sentence, if any, ought to be accorded to respondent nos.2 to 6 in the facts of this case.

2. It may be recapitulated that the contempt proceedings were instituted by the petitioner herein, on account of deliberate violation and willful disobedience of the judgment of this court dated 31.03.2006 passed in CS (OS) 2349/2000 as also the judgment dated 15.12.2006 passed in RFA(OS) 33/2006.

3. My predecessor has discussed the aspect of violation of the direction contained in aforementioned judgment/order of this court in great detail. It may only be noticed that respondent nos.2 to 6 in the captioned petition were at the relevant time members of the petitioner no.1 Union. Civil suits were filed in this court being: CS (OS) 681/1999 and 2349/2000. It is in these suits, that a common order dated 31.03.2006 was passed by a single Judge of this court.

3.1 The upshot of the said judgments was that respondent nos.2 and 6, who were defendants in the suit, were restrained from projecting themselves as General Secretary/ office bearers of petitioner no.1 Union. Since elections were also ordered from time to time, various Court Commissioners were appointed. Though the Court Commissioner, in the first instance, was appointed in the suit itself, this was continued in the appeal, to which I have already made a reference i.e., RFA(OS) 33/2006.

3.2 What is noticed in the judgment of this court dated 19.01.2012 passed in the captioned petition is that, respondent nos.1 to 6 along with certain other members of the Executive Committee, in the teeth of the orders of this court, convened a meeting for dissolving the petitioner no.1 Union itself. This resolution was passed on 15.06.2008. It is noticed by this court vide its judgment dated 19.01.2012 that, the said resolution, dissolving the petitioner no.1 Union itself records the fact that, this court, had appointed Court Commissioners to conduct elections to the petitioner no.1 Union.

3.3 The court then went on to notice that, instead of approaching this court for variation of the order, respondent nos.1 to 6 along with others went about passing the aforementioned resolution dated 15.06.2008. One of the defences which was raised before this court, was that, at the meeting at which the aforementioned resolution dated 15.06.2008 was passed, there were nearly around 43,000 persons present who claimed to be members of the petitioner no.1 Union.

3.4 Defence was also taken qua the aspect of limitation. This court by the said order, i.e., order dated 19.01.2012 rejected the defence taken by the respondent nos.1 to 6, and came to the conclusion that, respondent nos.2 to 6 were guilty of contempt.

3.5 It may also be noted that this court before coming to this conclusion specifically recorded the fact that, respondent nos.2 to 6, had not tendered an apology in the replies filed to the contempt petition, and had in fact, tried to justify their conduct of what was then an allegation of breach of the order/judgment of this court, at that point in time.

3.6 After considering the above, this court held respondent nos.2 to 6 guilty of contempt. It may also be relevant to mention that against the order dated 19.01.2012, a contempt appeal bearing no.7/2012, was preferred by respondent nos.2 to 6. The said contempt appeal vide order dated 23.03.2012, was dismissed as withdrawn.

3.7 Thereupon the respondents have filed affidavits dated 23.04.2012, seeking to tender unqualified and unconditional apology. It may be noted that while tendering an unqualified and unconditional apology, there is also a reference to the fact that each of the said respondents i.e., respondent nos.2 to 6 acted the way they did, under the guidance of one, Mr. N. Das, who, at some point in time, was the President of the petitioner no.1 Union. In ot