( 1 ) THE instant Suo motu proceedings are registered against the respondent in view of the following facts which emerge from the order dated February 17, 2006, passed by the learned Single Judge. When the learned single Judge was hearing Company application No. 239 of 2005. a mobile phone started ringing in the Court. The court saw that keeping mobile phone in hand, the respondent was walking out of the Court. When the Court noticed this the Court called the respondent. According to the learned Single Judge instead of expressing any remorse or regrets, the respondent started saying that he was keeping his mobile phone on vibration mode but as he had to take some medicines, he had set the alarm which went off. The learned Judge noticed that the respondent did not express a word of regret upto that time and when the Court asked him that the Court was likely to issue a notice to him to show cause, he said that it was the choice of the court. Thereupon, the learned Single Judge by an order dated February 17. 2006 directed to issue notice to the respondent calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ( the Act for short) for ignoring the directions issued by this Court that nobody should bring his working mobile phone in the Court nor should allow his mobile to ring. After directing to issue notice, as staled above, the learned Judge directed to put up the matter on February 24,2006 and asked the respondent to remain in attendance. It was also directed that the copy of the order be served on the respondent and separate proceedings be registered. Further the Registry was directed to place the matter before the learned Judge himself as according to the learned Judge the contempt was on face of the Judge. Pursuant to the abovenoted order, the Registry registered suo motu contempt proceedings against the respondent as Misc. Civil Application No. 27 of 2006.

( 2 ) ON receipt of the notice dated february 17/20. 2006 and the order dated february 17,2006, the respondent filed affidavit-in-reply dated February 23,2006 stating inter alia that there were certain factual mistakes in order dated February 17,2006, which were either not there in the order dictated in the open Court or were not noticed by him. The respondent has mentioned in the reply that the Court had not called him on noticing that keeping mobile in hand he was walking out of the court but according to the respondent, he was surprised and alarmed that the alarm of his mobile phone rung in the court-room and in order to prevent disturbance to the court, he had rushed out of the Courtroom, simultaneously trying to switch off the alarm and before he had stepped out of the Court room, the alarm was switched off. The respondent has stated in the reply that within about three or four minutes his instructing advocate, who is his son, had come out of the Court and informed him that alter he had come out of the Court room. His Lordship had expressed displeasure on the alarm starting to sound in the court-room and though he had apologised on behalf of the respondent. His lordship had called for the respondent. According to the respondent immediately he had returned back in the Court room and on getting opportunity explained apologetically to His Lordship that as he was required to take some medicines at about 12. 30 p. m. he had, while in Chamber, set the alarm. The respondent has explained in the reply that he had received a message at about 12. 00 noon that the matter was likely to reach shortly and, therefore, he had got dressed to come to the Court and that though he had set the mobile on vibration mode he had through oversight failed to switch off the alarm. The respondent has stressed in the reply that after he had switched off the alarm, as slated above, there was no further ringing thereof at any time. According to the respondent he had staled before the Court that he was sorry but Hi