Ellora Labour Co-Operative ... vs Gurjit Singh Cheema And Others
1985 Latest Caselaw 509 Del

ORDER

1. This petition and another Contempt Petition (C.C.P. No. 204 of 1984) have been filed under Ss. 11 and 12 read with Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 by Ellora Co-operative (Labour and Construction) Society Ltd. Village Chandanhulla, Delhi to punish the respondents in the two petitions for violating the injunction order dated 26th March, 1984 in Civil Revision No. 307 of 1984.

The following persons are respondents in C.C.P. No. 65 of 1984 filed on 16th April, 1984 :

1. Sh. Gurjit Singh Cheema, Collector of Mines & Quarries, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'COLLECtor')

2. Shri Satish Kumar Gatwal, S.D.M. New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'S.D.M.')

3. Mr. Nawabhuddin, Inspector, Mines & Quarries (hereinafter referred to as the 'INSPECtor')

The following persons are respondents in C.C.P. No. 204 of 1984 filed on 26th October, 1984 :

1. Sh. Satish Kumar Gatwal, S.D.M. New Delhi (hereinafter refereed to as the 'S.D.M.')

2. Sh. Jaipal Singh, Station House Officer, police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'S.H.O.')

3. Mr. Shamsuddin, Village Chandanhulla, Mehrauli, New Delhi.

2. Briefly these are the facts :

Ellora Labour (Co-operative & Construction) Society Ltd. is a society registered under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972. It was registered on 5th October, 1983. The object of the society is to acquire land for purposes of acquiring stones and other mining minerals and carrying on the work of extracting minerals. The petitioner-society approached Gaon Sabha Bhatti within whose jurisdiction village Sahaurpur falls for grant of lease of land for the purpose of quarrying stones and bajari. Gaon Sabha Bhatti resolved on 16th August, 1983 that lease of land measuring 542 bighas and 18 biswas comprising of field Numbers 526, 527, 529, 530, 534 and 535 in village Shahurpur, Mehrauli, Delhi be created in favor of the petitioner-society for a period of nine years. No objection certificate for extracting stones and bajari was issued and eventually lease for a period of nine years on payment of Rs. 50/- per bigha annually was created in favor of the petitioner society on 2nd November, 1983 by the Assistant Commissioner (Panchayat) Delhi Administration, Delhi. The petitioner-society paid a sum of Rs. 27,145/- as lease money for one year on 21st November, 1983 and entered into possession of the aforesaid land. The petitioner-society thereafter approached the Collector of Mines and Quarries for grant of prospecting license and permits for extracting stones and Bajari. Permit Nos. 434 and 435 were issued by the Collector of Mines & Quarries in favor of the petitioner-society. The petitioner-society had paid Rs. 16,200/- in respect of permit No. 434 and Rs. 5,400/- in respect of Permit No. 435.

3. On 6th February, 1984 the 'COLLECtor' issued a notice to the petitioner-society to show cause whey the said permits be not cancelled. The permits were also suspended by him. On 8th February, 1984 the petitioner-society filed a suit for permanent injunction against the 'COLLECtor', Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration and the Union of India being Suit No. 61 of 1984 of the Court of Sub Judge, 1st class, Delhi restraining the said defendants from dispossessing, interfering in the peaceful possession/work of the petitioner-society in extracting and quarrying the stones by the petitioner-society over the said land in village Sahoorpur, Mahrauli, Delhi and from suspending the permit Nos. 434 and 435. An application for temporary injunction to the same effect was also made. The trial court by order dated 13th February, 1984 stayed the operation of the suspension order dated 6th February, 1984 but by order dated 16th March, 1984 it vacated the order and kept pending the application for grant of temporary injunction. An appeal filed by the petitioner-society was dismissed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge by order dated 21st March, 1984. The petitioner-society filed C.R. No. 307 of 1984 challenging the refusal of the grant of temporary injunction.

4. On 26th March, 1984 this court on C.M. No. 1014 of 1984 in C.R. No. 307 of 1984 passed the following order :

"Notice for 24th April, 1984.

The respondents are restrained from interfering with the peaceful work and possession of the petitioner with respect to the mines in question situate at Village Sahurpur, Delhi. The operation of the order suspending the license of the petitioner is hereby stayed till further order. dusty."

5. An application (C.M. No. 1122 of 1984) under O. 39, R. 4 of the Code was filed by the respondents in the Revision Petition (C.R. No. 307 of 1984) for vacating the injunction order dated 26th March, 1984. It came up for hearing on 6th April, 1984 but no one was present on behalf of the respondent. This application was adjourned to 24th April, 1984 when the ex parte injunction order dated 26th March, 1984 was confirmed till the decision of the revision petition.

6. The petitioner-society in C.C.P. No. 65 of 1984 has alleged that the 'COLLECtor' (Respondent No. 1) felt frustrated, and made up his mind to take law into his own hands and act in violation of the said injunction order dated 26th March, 1984, that he on 11th April, 1984 along with the 'S.D.M.' and the 'INSPECtor' (Respondents 2 and 3) arrived at the site where extraction work was going on with a heavy contingent of police force and stopped the work in progress, that Babu Ram who was engaged in the work of issuing permits to the vehicles at work was coerced to make writings at their behest, that registration books and allied documents were seized from the truck drivers so that they may not do transportation work for the petitioner and that the labourers were abused and given beating, that the 'S.D.M.' and the 'INSPECtor' were shown the copy of the injunction order dated 26th March, 1984 but the same was torn into pieces by the 'S.D.M.' and they declared that they did not care for the order passed by the court and would do what they liked and nobody could stand in their way; they were requested by Babu Ram and others not to take the law in their own hands and to show respect to the order of the High Court but they remained adamant and declared that they had been directed by the 'COLLECtor' of Mines and Quarries and were working under his instructions and world carry out those instructions. It is further alleged that the 'S.D.M.' and the 'INSPECtor' again on 15th April, 1984 reached at the site and interfered in the work of the petitioner-society. On that date, Babu Ram and Shanker Lal along with 21 labourers were apprehended and half of them were let off at the police station in the evening and the rest were sent to jail. The petitioner-society alleges that the three respondents interfered with the administration of justice and in the circumstances their conducts amounts to willful disobedience of the injunction order dated 26th March, 1984 and committed civil contempt.

7. In C.C.P. No. 204 of 1984 the petitioner-society has alleged that in continuation of the allegations contained in its previous C.C.P. No. 65 of the 1984 with a view to coerce the petitioner-society to withdraw the said contempt petition, the 'COLLECtor' the 'S.D.M.', and the 'INSPECtor' in collusion with Samsuddin (Respondent No. 3) got an application filed in the trial court for withdrawal of the Suit No. 61 of 1984 pending before the Sub Judge, Delhi. 'SAMSUDDIN' described himself as President of the Society when in fact he did not hold the office. The Sub Judge without issuing any notice to the petitioner society and by taking up the suit on date which was not the date fixed in the suit, dismissed the suit as withdrawn, that the respondents-defendants in the civil Revision thereafter moved an application for vacation of the injunction order dated 26th March, 1984 on the ground that the suit had stood dismissed. This court on 8th June, 1984 therefore vacated the injunction order dated 26th March, 1984. The petitioner approached the trial court for restoration of the suit which was allowed by order dated 17th July, 1984 after notice to 'SAMSUDDIN'. 'SAMSUDDIN' on the notice of application for restoration has written that be had nothing to do with the same. 'SAMSUDDIN' thereafter challenged the order dated 17th July, 1984 of the trial court restoring the suit to hearing by filing C.M. (M) No. 192 of 1984 but the same was dismissed by this court. By order dated 23rd July, 1984 in C.R. No. 307 of 1984 the injunction order dated 24th April, 1984 was revived by this court.

8. The petitioner-society has alleged that the 'COLLECtor' and the 'S.D.M.' did not relent and with a view to frustrating the petitioner-society got the lease of land where mining activity was being carried out, cancelled through Sh. G. R. Matta, Asstt. Development Commissioner, Delhi by an order dated 19th July, 1984 without issue of any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner society challenged the order dated 19th July, 1984 by filing C.W.P. No. 1903 of 1984 before this court in which on 31st August, 1984 show cause notice was issued and the operation of the impugned order dated 19th July, 1984 cancelling the lease was stayed. The said Writ Petition was admitted on 19th October, 1984 and the and interim stay was made absolute.

9. The petitioner-society has further alleged that the 'S.D.M.' New Delhi started exerting pressure through the 'S.H.O.' Police Station Mehrauli on the Secretary and other members of the petitioner-society to withdrawn all the proceedings including C.C.P. No. 65 of 1984 that all types of threats were given out but the petitioner was not yielding to those threats, the 'S.H.O' took up false and fake proceedings under Ss. 107 and 151 of the Criminal P.C. by creating two groups - one headed by 'SAMSUDDIN' and the other by Ranjit Singh, Secretary of the society while in fact there were no such groups, some of the members were falsely shown in the KALANDRA as members of the group headed by 'SAMSUDDIN'. On 3rd October, 1984 the 'S.D.M.' himself appeared before the Magistrate exerting his influence to such an extent that Ranjit Singh, Secretary and other members were not released on bail despite the fact that bail bonds were offered and in this way they were kept in judicial lock up and ultimately on 5th October, 1984 they were released on bail. The petitioner-society has further alleged that 'SAMSUDDIN' in collusion and conspiracy with the 'S.D.M.' and the 'S.H.O.' filed a false suit against Mohinder Singh, member of the petitioner society and on a false and procured report of refusal obtained an order from the Sub-Judge, Delhi restraining Mohinder Singh from interfering in the work of the plaintiff (Samsuddin) as President of the petitioner-society, and pursuant to that order dated 19th October, 1984 'SAMSUDDIN' and the 'S.H.O.' on 21st October, 1984 along with a strong police force, dispossessed the members and employees of the petitioner from the land by use of force and under the threat that in case they showed any resistance they would be hauled up and implicated in criminal cases and the bonds furnished by them would be got forfeited, that since then police force had been posted at the site and 'SAMSUDDIN' is guarded to stay on in place of the petitioner under the false claim that he is the President of the Society, that about 200 persons of village Chandanhulla visited the Police Commissioner on 23rd October, 1984 to apprise how the 'S.H.O.' Mehrauli Police Station and the police force, was being misused for ulterior and mala fide purposes but nothing came out.

10. The petitioner society thus alleges that the order of injunction passed by this court has been grossly violated and the petitioner-society had been ousted from the working of the mines and the members of the society dare not go near the site for fear of the police which has been posted there and 'SAMSUDDIN' has been made to stay, reap undeserved gain and fabricate such material as may be used against the petitioner-society and its office bearers subsequently. It is alleged that the 'S.H.O.' and 'SAMSUDDIN' are the agents rather tools of the 'S.D.M.' who is abusing his official position to the extreme so that he may escape the consequences of C.C.P. No. 65 of 1984 pending against him. The petitioner-society has alleged that the respondents in C.C.P. No. 204 of 1984 are aware of the true state of things, but they do not listen, that their acts constitute contempt of court and action for contempt be taken against them.

11. C.C.P. No. 204 of 1984 was listed on 26th October, 1984. Notice was issued to the respondents. On the request of the petitioner Mr. S. S. Sawhney, Joint Registrar of this court was appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the site in question to report as to who were in possession of the said site where the mining work was going on. He was directed to make a detailed report about the persons including police officers, if any, found present at the time of inspection. The Joint Registrar of this court visited the site on 26th October, 1985 and submitted report.

12. The three respondents i.e. the 'COLLECtor', the 'S.D.M.' and the 'INSPECtor' in reply to C.C.P. No. 65 of 1984 submit that they have the highest regard for the orders of this court, that respondent No. 1 is the Additional District Magistrate, respondent No. 2 is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and respondent No. 3 is the Inspector of Mines, that they hold responsible positions, and tender unconditional apology. They submit that there was no disobedience of the injunction order. They however challenge the validity of the injunction. They submit that the two permits were suspended on 6th February, 1984 and cancelled on 16th March, 1984 after considering the reply to the show cause. They allege that the Director of Mines (Safety) in his order dated 23rd February, 1984 under Section 22(3) of the Mines Act, 1952 had brought to the notice of the petitioner-society that inspection was made on 30th January, 1984 when various contraventions of Mines Act, 1952 were revealed and the petitioner-society was prohibited from employing persons in the mines forthwith. Copy of the order was sent to the Collector of Mines and Quarries, Delhi, that the Director of Mines has no independent agency for executing his orders and therefore the 'COLLECtor' (Respondent No. 1) being the Additional District Magistrate of Delhi is supposed to be the executing agency of the order passed by the Director of Mines, that the two permits expired on 14th April, 1984. The 'COLLECtor' (Respondent No. 1) submits that on the one hand the order of the Director of Mines endorsed to him had to be complied with to avert danger to life of the labour employed and on the other the 'S.D.M.' (Respondent No. 2) was expected to take stock of the conditions on the expiry of the permit, that the rules framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 authorised the 'COLLECtor' and other functionaries to carry out inspection of the mines, that it was in these circumstances the 'COLLECtor' deputed the 'S.D.M.' and the 'INSPECtor' of mines to go to the spot and inspect the mines, that on earlier occasions the workers and other functionaries of the petitioner-society had held out intimidations and threats, that the 'COLLECtor' at the instance of the 'S.D.M.' and the 'INSPECtor' had instructed the Police to give necessary protection when they go to spot. It is alleged that on 15th April, 1984 at 10 a.m. the 'S.D.M.' and the 'INSPECtor' along with police party reached the spot but were prevented from carrying out the duties of inspection, that they were assaulted as a result of which a report under Section 107/151, Cr.P.C. was lodged, that there was no intention on their part to flout the order of this court, that no inspection had been carried out till 15th April, 1984. They submit that allegations regarding incidents of 11th April, 1984 are totally false and baseless, that the 'INSPECtor' (Respondent No. 3) alone had gone to the spot on 11th April, 1984, that one Babu Ram was sitting on the Check Post as representative of the society, who objected to the proper counting of the mineral, that the inspector reported that inspection was not possible without police protection and the petitioner's work was not interfered.

13. The petitioner-society in its rejoinder submits that the 'S.D.M.' New Delhi (Respondent No. 2) was also Deputy Director (Panchayat) Mehrauli, New Delhi and the Asstt. Development Commissioner (Panchayat) by order dated 19th July, 1984 to the 'S.D.M.' and the Deputy Director (Panchayat) cancelled the lease of the land created in favor of the petitioner-society, that the 'COLLECtor' (respondent No. 1) is not the executing agency for the orders passed by the Directorate of Mines Safety, who has his own independent agency for executing order, that the story of inspection now set up by the respondent is contrary to KALANDRA dated 15th April, 1984 made at the instance of the 'S.D.M.' (respondent No. 2) that the 'S.D.M. and the 'INSPECtor' were never prevented from inspecting the documents and registers of the society, that the 'S.D.M.' brought the police force and he had given directions to the police not to release the workers although they were entitled to be released on bail but they were sent to jail.

14. In reply to C.C.P. No. 204 of 1984 the 'S.D.M.' (respondent No. 1 tenders unconditional apology. He submits that 'SAMSUDDIN' never acted at his instance for withdrawal of the suit; that he has no knowledge about the cancellation of the lease by the order dated 19th July, 1984 of Shri G. R. Matta, Asstt. Development Commissioner (P) Delhi and he had no concern with the cancellation of the lease. He further submits that he has not violated the injunction order.

15. The 'S.H.O.' (Respondent No. 2) submits that there are two rival groups in the petitioner-society, that SAMSUDDIN obtained stay order restraining the opposite party from interfering with the work of the society, that the members of the two groups posed threat to public tranquillity which necessitated preventive action under Section 107/151, Cr.P.C., that the police never turned out any employee of the petitioner-society, that he himself did not visit the place on 21st October, 1984, that no permanent police guard was posted in the area.

16. 'SAMSUDDIN' (respondent No. 3) in his reply submits that he is the President of the petitioner-society and therefore he has a right to carry on the mining work, he admits that he filed a suit against Mohinder Singh, a member of the society that he obtained an injunction order restraining Mohinder Singh from interfering in his work as President of the petitioner-society from the court on 19th October, 1984 and on 21st October, 1984. When he went at site he was assaulted by the workers of the petitioner-society and the 'S.H.O.' took preventive action.

17. The petitioner-society in its rejoinder submits that 'SAMSUDDIN' (respondent No. 3) is not the President, he has been planted at the site and given constant protection by the police, that the denial by the 'S.D.M.' (respondent No. 1) that he has no knowledge about the cancellation of the lease of the land of petitioner-society is false to his knowledge, that the letter of cancellation of lease by the Asstt. Development Commissioner was addressed to him, that the activity which is being carried on now at the site is not the activity of the petitioner-society but of 'SAMSUDDIN' (respondent No. 3) who has been put in possession and has been afforded full protection by the 'S.H.O.' that the 'S.D.M.' and 'S.H.O.' violated the injunction.

18. The respondents challenge the validity of the injunction order dated 26th March, 1984 confirmed on 24th April, 1984. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the validity of the injunction order cannot be challenged in these proceedings. On 26th March, 2984 injunction was issued restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful work and possession of the petitioner-society with respect to the mines in question at Village Shahurpur, Delhi. The operation of the order suspending the license granted to the petitioner was also stayed. This order was confirmed on 24th April, 1984. However, after the dismissal of the suit by the trial court this court vacated the injunction order on 8th June, 1984. But the suit was restored by the trial court on 17th July, 1984 and this court revived the said injunction by order dated 23rd July, 1984. The injunction was however finally vacated by the Supreme Court on 29th October, 1984. In other words, injunction order dated 26th March, 1984 remained in operation up to 29th October, 1984 except for a short period from 8th June, 1984 to 22nd July, 1984. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the permit was for the period ending 14th April, 1984 and therefore the injunction beyond that date was invalid.

19. It is well known that the validity of an injunction order cannot be questioned in contempt proceedings. So long as the injunction order has not been vacated or modified by the court granting it, or has not been reversed on appeal, no matter how unreasonable and unjust the injunction may be, the order must be obeyed. Violation of the order of injunction cannot be excused on the ground that though the court acted within its jurisdiction, the order that it passed, was erroneous. The court, in contempt proceedings, does not inquire into the merits of the case in which the injunction was issued. That is the function of the court granting the injunction and if that order is challenged in appeal, then of the Court of Appeal. See Narain Singh v. Hardayal Singh, . The Division Bench in Subodh Gopal Bose v. Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd., has observed that the party against whom an order of injunction is made cannot disregard the order on the ground that it is erroneous in any particular. Right or wrong, the injunction order binds him, and he disregards it at his peril. The Division Bench in Kutumba Rao v. Venkata Subbao Rao, has observed that the injunction order has got to be obeyed whether it is valid or irregular unless it is vacated. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the validity of the injunction order cannot be challenged in these proceedings.

20. In C.C.P. No. 65 of 1984 the petitioner has alleged that the 'COLLECtor' the 'S.D.M.' and the 'INSPECtor' respondents 1 to 3 visited the site along with the police on 11th April, 1984 and violated the injunction order by preventing them from carrying on extraction work, that the documents were seized and the labourers were abused and given beating, that the S.D.M. and the Inspector were shown a copy of the order dated 26th March, 1984 but they did not care for the orders passed by the court and said that nobody could stand in his way. Babu Ram on behalf of the petitioner-society requested them not to take law in their own hands and to show respect to the orders of the court, but they declined saying that they had been directed by the Collector of Mines and Quarries and were working under his instructions. These allegations are supported by affidavit dated 18th April, 1984, of Babu Ram, an employee of the society, another affidavit dated 4th December, 1984 of Bhagwat, a member of the petitioner-society and also affidavit dated 7th December, 1984 of Fazru, another member of the petitioner-society. On behalf of the respondents these allegations are denied. They submit that the 'INSPECtor' respondent No. 3 alone had gone to the site of the petitioner-society on 11th April, 1984 Nawabuddin, Inspector, respondent No. 3 has deposed that he had gone alone at the site on 11th April, 1984 at 10 a.m. that Babu Ram sitting on the check post objected to noting down the numbers of trucks which were going out with Badarpur stone. There is no corroborative evidence with regard to the alleged incident of 11th April, 1984 as alleged by the petitioner-society. After careful consideration regarding this incident I hold that the incident of 11th April, 1984 has not been proved beyond doubt.

21. The petitioner-society in C.C.P. No. 65 of 1984 has also alleged that the 'S.D.M.' and the 'Inspector' respondents 2 and 3 on 15th April, 1984 reached at the site along with the police and interfered in the work of the petitioner-society. Babu Ram and Shanker Lal along with 21 labourers were apprehended and half of them were let off at the police station in the evening and the rest were sent to jail. In reply it is admitted that the 'S.D.M.' and the 'Inspector' respondents 2 and 3 along with the police party under the instructions of the 'Collector' respondent No. 1 went to the site of the petitioner-society on 15th April, 1984 at 10 a.m. for the purpose of inspection as directed by the Collector. It is alleged that they were prevented from carrying out the duties of inspection, that they were assaulted and a report under Section 107/151, Cr.P.C. was lodged. The report dated 15th April, 1984 under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. (Kalendra) is however contrary to this reply of the respondents. According to the Kalendra on 15th April, 1984 at 8 a.m. the 'S.D.M.' went to the police station Mehrauli and told that permit for mining Badarpur stone had expired but the permit-holders were still working and mining the Badarpur stone and marketing the same which was an illegal act of mining. He told that it was necessary to stop the mining operation and raiding party was formed. The raiding party went to the site in question of the petitioner-society where several labourers were found working in the mining area. They asked the labourers to come out of the mines and they came out. The labourers told their colleagues to continue mining work and resist the 'S.D.M.' and the raiding party. The 'S.D.M.' and the police told them that according to permit the date of license had expired and the mining work was illegal but the workers did not pay any heed and they threatened. It is further noted therein that the labourers in bold voice told that they would kill anybody who comes in their way. The contents of the Kalendra leave no doubt in my mind that the 'S.D.M.' considered that the permit had expired on 14th April, 1984 therefore the labourers of the petitioner-society had no right to continue the mining operation irrespective of the injunction order of this court. He asked the labourers to come out of the mining operation. They came out and resisted the stopping of the mining operation. Some of them were arrested and sent to jail. They were within their rights to resist and carry on their work in view of the injunction order of this court but they were obstructed by the 'S.D.M.' the 'Inspector' and the police party on the ground that the permits had expired on 14th April, 1984. Kalendra corroborates the allegation of the petitioner-society that they were prevented from carrying on the mining operation on 15th April, 1984. The respondents in their reply have not disclosed these facts but have set up a false story that they had gone only for the purpose of inspection. It is nothing but an after-thoughy. Certified copy of the Kalendra in Hindi is at paid 89 and photostat copy is at page 155 and its English translation is at page 157.

22. The 'S.D.M.' Satish Kumar Gatwal in his affidavit dated 30th April, 1985 has deposed that the Kalendra was not prepared at his instance and was not shown to him and that the statements of Kalendra were not correct. This is a mere denial and an after-thought. Kalendra was in the knowledge of the 'S.D.M.' and prepared at his instance. He went to the police station and the words contained in the Kalendra are not wrong. It confirms the allegations of the petitioner-society. In the Kalendra there is no reference to the alleged inspection to be carried out at the instance of the Collector respondent No. 1. Harpal, Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police Station Mehrauli who was posted there on 15th April, 1984, in his affidavit dated 12th April, 1985 has deposed that he along with police party and the 'S.D.M.' and the 'Inspector' (respondents 2 and 3) reached the spot, that they were prevented from carrying the duties of inspection with regard to taking measurement of material collected at site, that they were assaulted and a report was lodged. The story regarding inspection does not find place in the Kalendra. His affidavit is not correct. Kalendra was recorded by the police at the instance of the 'S.D.M.' There is not a single word that the 'INSPECtor' and the 'S.D.M.' had gone for inspection at the site where the mining work was going on and were prevented to inspect. On the contrary there is definite allegation that the permits had expired and mining operation after the expiry of the permit was illegal and they should be stopped from doing so. It is therefore certain that the 'S.D.M.' 'Inspector' and the police party on 15th April, 1984 prevented the petitioner-society from carrying out the work of mining in violation of the injunction order dated 26th March, 1984. The allegations of the petitioner-society are fully corroborated by the contents of the Kalendra besides the affidavits. The denial by the 'S.D.M.' about the contents of the Kalendra is false to his knowledge. The denial on his part is an after-thought. It is admitted that the 'Collector' was not at the site on 15th April, 1984 but the 'S.D.M.' and the 'Inspector' acted on his advice. The Collector was not at the site and therefore it cannot be said that he violated the injunction order. I hold that the 'S.D.M.' and the 'Inspector' respondents 2 and 3 only willfully interfered with the mining work of the petitioner-society on 15th April, 1984 in violation of the injunction dated 26th March, 1984 and are guilty of contempt.

23. In C.C.P. No. 204 of 1984 Samsuddin respondent No. 3 along with the 'S.D.M.' and the 'S.H.O.' respondents 1 and 2 are alleged to have violated the injunction. Learned counsel submits that 'Samsuddin' filed an application in the trial court falsely alleging himself to be the President of the Petitioner-society and requested the trial court for dismissal of the suit as withdrawn. 'Samsuddin' made a statement on 7th May, 1984 for the withdrawal of the suit. He had filed the application for withdrawal on 5th May, 1984. When the petitioner-society came to know of the dismissal of the suit as withdrawn it made an application for its restoration. The election of the petitioner-society was held on 4th May, 1984 and Mauz Khan was elected as President and Ranjit Singh as Secretary of the Society. In other words 'Samsuddin' was not President on 7th May, 1984 when he made the statement withdrawing the suit. In the application for withdrawal of the suit made by 'Samsuddin' it has been alleged that the permits Nos. 434 and 435 had expired on 14th April, 1984 and thereafter the society did not want to pursue suit. The allegation that the permits had expired has been seriously contested by the petitioner-society. The trial court restored the suit by order dated 17th July, 1984 observing that 'Samsuddin' was not the President of the Society on 7th May, 1984, that he misled the court, that the suit was dismissed without notice to the defendant or to Ranjit Singh, Secretary, through whom the suit was filed. The suit was thus restored by order dated 17th July, 1984. Samsuddin challenged this order by a petition C.M. (M) No. 192 of 1984 but the same was dismissed by this court on 2nd August, 1984. Learned counsel further submits that Samsuddin thereafter on 18th October, 1984 filed a suit for injunction in his own name against Mohinder Singh, another member of the society, Registrar of Co-operative Societies, again falsely alleging himself to be the President of the petitioner-society and prayed for injunction restraining Mohinder Singh defendant from interfering in the affairs of the society. He also filed an application for temporary injunction. The suit and the application came up for hearing before the Sub-Judge on 18th October, 1984 who issued notice for 19th October, 1984. Learned counsel submits that 'Samsuddin' procured a false report of refusal and thus obtained the injunction order on 19th October, 1984 from the Sub-Judge in the following words :

"Defendant No. 1 is restrained from interfering in the work of the plaintiffs as 'President' of the Ellora Co-op. Labour and Construction Society till further orders."

24. On the basis of this injunction order 'Samsuddin' reached the site of the petitioner-society where mining work was going on along with police party on 21st October, 1984, 'Samsuddin' and the police party turned out from the suit land the members of the petitioner-society and its employees by use of force; 'Samsuddin' was planted at the site and was protected by the police party. As already stated Mr. S. S. Sawhney, Joint Registrar of this court was appointed as a Local Commissioner to visit the site and to report as to who where in possession of the land where the mining work was going on. The Local Commissioner visited the site on 26th October, 1984 and he has reported that Ram Singh, Head Constable, Jora Singh, Constable and Ram Bharan Singh, constable were deputed by the S.H.O. Mehrauli Jaspal Singh. It is reported that these police officers had been at site since 21st October, 1984 to prevent breach of peace. From the report it is also clear that 'Samsuddin' has started collections from the cashier and has taken possession of all the account books. In other words, from 21st October, 1984 'Samsuddin' has been in possession of the site in question, account books and other records and he 'Samsuddin' then interfered with the mining operation of the petitioner-society for which the injunction was issued. From the conduct of 'Samsuddin' the making an application for withdrawal of the suit which was restored on 17th July, 1984 and in filing the suit for injunction against Mohinder Singh and obtaining injunction on 19th October, 1984 it is apparent that he was not interested in continuation of the mining work for which the permits were granted to the petitioner-society. In this application for withdrawal he alleged that the permits had expired on 14th April, 1984 and therefore he prayed for withdrawal of the suit. If in fact he was the President of the Society what was the necessity for him to go to the court and withdraw the suit. The petitioner-society filed the suit against Delhi Administration through Ranjit Singh, Secretary, restraining it from cancelling or suspending the two permits in question. The conduct of 'SHAMSUDDIN' speaks that he was acting at the instance of somebody else. His actions were not for the benefit of the petitioner. As he was not the President of the Society he had no business to apply for withdrawal of the suit or to file the suit for injunction for restraining Mohinder Singh, another member of the society from interference with the work as President of the petitioner-society. On the basis of the false and frivolous allegations he got the injunction order on 19th October, 1984 and in the garb of the injunction order he interfered with the mining work of the petitioner-society on and from 21st October, 1984. He was aware of the injunction order and he willfully disobeyed the injunction and unlawfully dispossessed the petitioner-society. He took possession of the site and sought protection from the police. From the report of the Local Commissioner it is also clear that he and his men have been protected by the police since 21st October, 1984. The 'S.D.M.' and the 'S.H.O.' were not at the site on 21st October, 1984 or thereafter. There is no evidence that the 'S.D.M.' and the 'S.H.O.' (respondents 1 and 2) violated the injunction order on 21st October, 1984. It was only 'SHAMSUDDIN' (respondent No. 3) who willfully disobeyed the injunction order. I, therefore, hold that 'SHAMSUDDIN' is guilty of willfully violating the injunction order of this Court.

25. The next question is about the punishment to be awarded to the guilty persons. These respondents have tendered apology. The apology is not out of penitence but to ward of the court. It is not bona fide. They have violated the injunction order willfully with full knowledge of facts and do not deserve sympathy. The 'S.D.M' respondent No. 2 and the 'INSPECtor' respondent No. 3 in C.C.P. No. 65 of 1984 knowing that there was an injunction order of this court, went to the site on 15th April, 1984 and prevented the mining operation on the ground that the permits had expired. They are not illiterate persons. They were aware of the injunction order but still they prevented the petitioner-society from continuing its work. Similarly 'SHAMSUDDIN' on 21st October, 1984 knowing fully that he was not the President of the society obtained an injunction order on false ground and in the garb of the injunction order dispossessed the members of the petitioner-society and thus violated the injunction order.

26. Considering the circumstances of the case, I impose a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the 'S.D.M' (respondent No. 2) and in default thereof simple imprisonment for 15 days. I further impose a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the 'INSPECtor' (respondent No. 3) and in default thereof simple imprisonment for 15 days (C.C.P. No. 65 of 1984). 'SHAMSUDDIN' (respondent No. 3) in C.C.P. No. 204 of 1984 deserves punishment of imprisonment. He falsely alleged himself to be the President of the Society with some ulterior motive and dispossessed the petitioner. Mere fine will not meet the ends of justice. I, therefore, sentence him to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for 15 days. 'SHAMSUDDIN' is ordered to be taken into custody. 'SHAMSUDDIN' shall also pay costs of these proceedings assessed at Rs. 500/- to the petitioner-society. Contempt notice to the other respondents in the two petitions is discharged with no order as to costs.

27. Order accordingly.