Unconditional apology accepted and suo moto contempt proceedings closed upon purging of the alleged interim order violation.

The Gauhati High Court initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against Shri Rohini Kumar Das, the then DFO of Dhemaji, based on observations made in a judgment dated 08.12.2023 in WP(C) No. 5728/2021.

The court noted an apparent violation of an interim order dated 02.11.2021, which stayed further tender processes for a forest Mahal.

Despite a 2022 direction to show cause, the contemnor had previously only filed an affidavit tendering an apology without explaining the cause of the violation.

In the present proceeding, the contemnor filed an affidavit stating that following the 2021 stay order, no possession was handed over and no agreement was signed with the third party.

1. Whether the contemnor committed willful disobedience of the court's interim directions dated 02.11.2021 sufficient to warrant punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act.

2. Whether the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor is sufficient to purge the contempt and close the proceedings.

The court applied the principles governing civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which empowers High Courts to punish for willful disobedience of any judgment or order.

The court exercised its discretionary power to accept an "unconditional apology" as a means to purge contempt when the interest of justice is served and the alleged violation has been rectified or identified as non-substantial.

The Court examined the specific nature of the alleged violation regarding the interim order dated 02.11.2021. While the initial order noted that a letter of intent had already been issued to a third party, it also recorded that the Forest Department had not yet handed over possession or signed a formal agreement.

Upon reviewing the contemnor’s current affidavit, the Court found that the contemnor had complied with the stay by not proceeding with the possession or the final agreement.

The Court balanced the procedural history—specifically the contemnor’s prior failure to show cause—against the current act of purging the contempt through an unconditional apology and the factual lack of further execution of the tender.

The Court accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor... Consequently, the suo moto contempt proceedings were closed without the imposition of penalties.