Violation of an injunction order passed by the Court constitutes contempt of court, and the Court has the power to set aside actions taken and orders passed in violation of such orders.

Both the Contempt Applications were filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court and for disobeying the order of this Court dated 5. 1994 in W.M.P.Nos.11872 and 11973 of 1994 in W.P.Nos.7760 and 7761 of 1994.

2. According to the petitioners, they were implicated in an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and their place of business and residence were raided by the authorities on 21. 1994 and Indian currency worth Rs.2,55,000/- was seized by the officials of the 1st respondent. The petitioners would submit that the seizure was without justification since the amount is duly accounted for in the books of accounts. The authorities have also recorded statements from the petitioners on 21. 1994, 21. 1994 and 21. 1994. The petitioners, thereafter, sent letters to the respondents requesting them to furnish with copies of such statements but the respondents replied that the same will not be furnished. Challenging the said refusal of the 1st respondent to give copies of the documents in their communication dated 4. 1994, W.P.Nos.7760 and 7761 of 1994 were filed in this Court by both the petitioners for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus . Along with the writ petitions, they fled W.M.P.Nos.11872 and 11873 of 1994 for interim injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner using the statements of the petitioners dated 21. 1994, 21. 1994 and 21. 1994 without giving copies of the same to the petitioners, pending disposal of the writ petitions.

.3. According to the petitioners, the above writ petitions came up for hearing before me and after considering the averments and records, I passed an order granting interim injunction in terms of the prayer and also directed notice to be served on the respondents. I further directed that the matter be posted in the third Vacation Court, 1994. The petitioners would submit that their counsel immediately intimated the order of injunction to the respondents. A letter was sent to the 2nd respondent on 5. 1994 by speed post with acknowledgment due. The same was sent to the 1st respondent on 5. 1994 by Registered post with acknowledgment due. The injunction applications again came up for hearing before this Court and the learned Judge extended the earlier order of injunction by order dated 15. 1994. According to the petitioners, the said order was also despatched by the Court to the respondents, as could be seen from the records, within a few days from 15. 1994. The petitioners have also obtained a copy of the same. Thus, it is contended that the original order of injunction granted on 5. 1994 is current, subsisting and is in force to the knowledge of both the respondents.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents instead of complying with the orders of this Courts, have seriously violated the same. It is stated in the affidavit that the 1st respondent appears to have sent his report to the 2nd respondent based on the statements of the petitioners above referred to with a requisition to pass an order of detention against the petitioners under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The 2nd respondent notwithstanding the express orders of this Court, has passed an order of detention against the petitioners under the Act using and relying upon the statements recorded from the petitioners on the three dates referred to above. Therefore it is contended that it is the clearest violation of the order of injunction granted by this Court and that the respondents have done so after they have been clearly informed of the interim injunction granted by this Court. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent appeared to have passed the detention order on 30.5.1994 when the injunction order was in force and subsisting in utter violation of the orders of this Court and that the violati