JUDGMENT
B.U. Wahane, J.
1. This Court issued Rule on 16th July 1992 calling upon the respondents no. 1 and 2 to show cause as to why the action should not be taken against them for the contempt of court for having violated order dtd. 12th February 1992 in Contempt Petition No. 184/91 and thereby not allowing the petitioner to sing the regular attendance register of approved teacher.
2. The only grievance in this petition is that the petitioner was not allowed to sign the regular attendance register of approved teacher in spite of the order passed by this Court and, therefore, the contemners no. 1 and 2 should be dealt with the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. The order passed by this Court on 12th February 1992 in contempt petition No. 184/91 reads as follows :
“Without prejudice to the rights of the parties and subject to the decision that may be given by the School Tribunal, the petitioner should be allowed to sign on the register of approved teachers, but that by itself, shall not confer any right on him.”
3. Shri Sudama, the learned counsel for the Respondent/contemner no. 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner was allowed to sign initially on the separate register. However, since June 1992, the petitioner was allowed to sign the regular muster roll of the approved teacher. Shri Sudama, the learned counsel for the contemners has not explained that thought this court has passed the order on 12th February 1992 directing the respondents 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to sign on the regular muster roll of approved teachers, why he was not allowed to sign the regular muster rill till June 1992. Merely allowing the petitioner to sign the regular muster roll since the month of June 1992 will not absolve the contemners of the willfull disobedience which the contemner has shown to the order passed by this court on 12.2.1992. Under the circumstances, it is crystal clear that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have committed the contempt of court and they be punished.
4. Shri B. A. Goswami – the Secretary of Sushant Shikshan Sanstha, Bhilewada filed his affidavit on 7th August 1992. Neither the reply nor affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 2 Prakash Panchbhai – the Head Master of Sanjay Gandhi Agriculture College, Tedha, Tah. Goregaon, Dist. Bhandara. The Contemner No. 1 Shri Goswami tendered unconditional apology for delay to obey the order passed by this court. However, mere tending apology will not satisfy as no reason has been assign for not allowing the petitioner to sign the regular muster roll of the approved that the respondent/contemner No. 1 has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order passed by this court on 12.2.1992, treating the order of this court as paper tiger. Considering the behaviour and attitude of the respondent No. 1 It is clear that he has committed the contempt of Court.
5. The respondent/Contemner No. 1 Shri B. A. Goswami – the Secretary of Sushant Shikshan Sanstha Bhilewada is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. He is directed to pay the fine in this court within a week from the date of this order, falling which he will have to suffer 15 days simple imprisonment. Rule issued against the respondent/contemner no. 1 is made absolute.
6. The respondent No. 2 is a Head Master who has to act or dance on the tunes of the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, he has no role to play. Hence, rule issued against him is discharged.