Contempt for issuing saw-mill licences in breach of a court ban and forest-area restrictions, with apology rejected.

Granting saw-mill licences after a prior Supreme Court direction barring fresh licences without permission, and in breach of the State restriction on saw mills near forest areas, constituted contempt. The respondent's plea of ignorance was rejected because the order had reached his office before the licences were issued, and the later cancellation of the licences was not treated as a voluntary cure since it followed superior forest directions. The Court nevertheless considered that he had recently assumed office and that this was a first lapse, and imposed a reprimand, warning, and costs after rejecting the apology.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was guilty of contempt for granting licences to saw mills in violation of the Court's earlier order and the statutory restriction on saw mills near forest areas; and, if so, what punishment was appropriate.

Analysis: The licences were granted after this Court had directed closure of unlicensed saw mills and prohibited fresh licences without prior permission. The applications were also contrary to the State enactment restricting saw mills within prohibited forest distances. The respondent's plea of ignorance was not accepted, since the order had reached his office before the licences were granted and, in any event, the grants were made despite the cancellation of earlier licences having attained finality. The later cancellation of the licences was not treated as a voluntary cure, as it was done only after directions from superior forest . The conduct was therefore found to amount to contempt, though the Court took into account that the respondent had recently assumed office and that this was his first lapse.

Conclusion: The respondent was held guilty of contempt, the apology was rejected, and the Court imposed a reprimand, a warning, and costs of Rs. 50,000/-.

---