Deliberate disobedience of closure orders and false affidavits can constitute contempt; belated apology may not purge it.

Deliberate disobedience of closure and relocation directions in respect of a hazardous hot mix plant was treated as contempt where the respondent continued operating the unit despite alternative allotment and court orders. The Court also noted that false or defiant affidavits in contempt proceedings aggravate misconduct. A belated apology was not accepted because it lacked genuine contrition and was inconsistent with the earlier categorical denial. On that basis, the text states that contempt was found, the apology was rejected, and punitive consequences were imposed for wilful non-compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondent was guilty of contempt for continuing to operate the hot mix plant in defiance of the Court's orders and the authority's closure directions; (ii) whether the belated apology tendered by the respondent deserved acceptance and what punishment, if any, should follow.

Issue (i): whether the respondent was guilty of contempt for continuing to operate the hot mix plant in defiance of the Court's orders and the authority's closure directions.

Analysis: The respondent continued operating the plant despite orders requiring closure and relocation of hot mix plants treated as hazardous and noxious. The record showed that the unit was covered by the later clarification, was allotted an alternative site, and yet remained in operation. The respondent's own pleadings and affidavits disclosed continued functioning and a defiant stand against the Court's directions. The Court treated the conduct as deliberate and contumacious, and also noted that false statements in affidavits in such proceedings amount to contempt.

Conclusion: The respondent was held guilty of contempt of court.

Issue (ii): whether the belated apology tendered by the respondent deserved acceptance and what punishment, if any, should follow.

Analysis: The apology was tendered only at a late stage and was inconsistent with the respondent's earlier categorical denial and defence of his conduct. The Court held that an apology is not a weapon of defence and must reflect real contrition. In view of the respondent's persistent defiance, the apology was found to be neither bona fide nor genuinely remorseful. Considering the environmental harm involved and the need for deterrence, exemplary punishment was considered necessary.

Conclusion: The apology was rejected and the respondent was sentenced to one week of simple imprisonment with costs of one lakh rupees.

Final Conclusion: The contempt petition succeeded, and the Court imposed punitive and deterrent consequences on the respondent for wilful non-compliance with closure directions relating to a hazardous industrial unit.

Ratio Decidendi: Deliberate disobedience of court orders, reinforced by false or defiant affidavits, constitutes contempt, and a belated apology lacking genuine contrition does not purge the contempt or bar punishment.

---