The judgment emphasizes the court's duty to protect public interest in the administration of justice and the importance of upholding the majesty of law. It highlights the assessment of the genuineness of the apology tendered and the exercise of judicial restraint in determining the appropriate punishment for contempt.

SUBRAMONIAN POTI, Actg. C.J.

This is petition by the petitioner in O.P. 9243 of 1982 for taking action for contempt against respondents 1 to 3 they being the Director of Telecommunications, Trivandrum, the Divisional Engineer, Telephone, Trivandrum, and the Junior Engineer, Telephone Kozhancherry. The basis for making this application is that the order of this Court in C.M.P. 2165 of 1983 in O.P. 9243 of 1982 directing reconnection of the telephone (33 of the Kozhancherry Exchange) forthwith was not respected by the respondent. After going through the averments in the petition we did not find a case made out against respondents 1 and 2 and therefore we confined notice to the 3rd respondent in the petition.

2. He has appeared us to-day. The order of this court in C.M.P. 2165 of 1983 was passed on 28-1-1983. The petition for stay had been posted on several dates earlier to and when it was finally heard on 15-12-1982 it is said to have been represented by Central Government counsel that the Original Petition itself could be heard on 32-12-1982. Accordingly it was directed to be posted for final hearing on 23-12-1982. But on that day the case could not be heard and under the circumstances the petitioner moved C.M.P. 2165 of 1983 seeking a direction restoring the telephone 33 Kozhancherry Exchange. It was so moved with notice to the Central Government Counsel and the order Ext. P1 was passed on 28-1-1983, after such notice. On the request of the petitioner's counsel the order was handed over on the same day and according to the petitioner his counsel informed him on 1-2-1983, telegraphically that reconnection of the telephone was ordered by the court. On receipt of the telegram the petitioner is said to have made representation to the 3rd respondent but the latter declined to act it on the ground that he had not received any order from court. Thereupon the petitioner came to Ernakulam and obtained the order. He banded over the 3rd respondent on 3-2-1983 and according to the petitioner and 3rd respondent said that he was not bound by the orders of the High Court but only by orders of his official superiors. The Photostat copies of the order are said to have been taken by the petitioner and these are said to heave been posted to respondent 1 and 2 on 4-1-1983. There are averments made in the petition to show that the 3rd respondent's conduct was not in-advertent but was because the petitioner refused to oblige him by issuing a free pass for traveling in his bus as desired. This is an averment which is defined. It is also denied that the order was handed over on 3-2-1983. According to 3rd respondent this petitioner we do not want to go into the truth or otherwise of the background stated for intentionally putting off implementing the order of this Court. Assuming that there was no such background and also that the order was received only on 4-2-1983 we have to consider why till 13-2-1983 reconnection was not given when the order of this Court directed that reconnection should be given forthwith. In the fact the first duty he had once he received the order, was to effect reconnection and that should be as far as possible on the same day giving priority over of 28-1-1983 was passed in the presence of Central Government Counsel and therefore the respondent must be taken to have notice even on that day, but we assume that he did not get actual notice till the 4th. We must remember that on 10-2-1983 the petitioner had moved a petition for contempt in which allegations were made against the 3rd respondent as to why the order of this court. It was only after receipt of notice by the Central Government counsel and possibly after the 3rd respondent came to know of this petition that reconnection was given on 13-2-1983. We must also remember that there was a telephone connection to the petitioner's house and that therefore there was no question of drawing any new line. There was only the question of taking the apparatus over to that