R.S. Pathak and; V. Khalid, JJ.
1. On August 6, 1986, this Court made an order in a pending special leave petition restraining the respondents for a period of 24 hours from taking further proceedings for the demolition of the property belonging to the petitioner. This was followed the next day by another order restraining the respondents from demolition of the construction belonging to the petitioner until further orders and from dispossessing him. The petitioner was permitted to make an application to the authorities for the return of the goods seized from his possession and the authorities were directed to consider the application on its merits.
2. On August 12, 1986, this application for initiating proceedings against the respondents for contempt of court was filed, alleging that the respondents had violated the orders of this Court. It was urged that although copies of the stay orders were shown to the officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, including the respondents, who were present on the spot, the demolition of the construction belonging to the petitioner was continued and the tools, equipment and motor vehicles assembled at the place were taken away by the respondents. When the case was taken up, the respondents expressed their readiness to return the articles and the motor vehicles removed by them, and an order was made accordingly on September 18, 1986. Subsequently, a Commissioner was appointed to enable delivery of possession.
3. There is considerable dispute on the point whether the orders of this Court have been violated by the respondents. Allegations and counter-allegations have been made in the affidavits filed before us. Since then, however, the respondents concerned have tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology for any disobedience of the orders of this Court, and that apology is plainly stated in the affidavit of Shri J.B. Tuli, Zonal Superintendent, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. We think that having regard to the contrition expressed by the respondents this matter may be closed now. We may warn the respondents, however, that any wilful violation in future of the orders of this Court will be viewed with the greatest seriousness, and little note will be taken then of any apology tendered by the contemnors.
4. The application is disposed of accordingly.