1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 19-11-1996 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, in Contempt Petition No. 44 of 1996.

3. In this appeal, again we are required to reiterate that contempt jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases. We find it difficult to understand the reasoning recorded by the High Court in its lengthy judgment for convicting the appellant under the provision of the Contempt of Courts Act.

4. Contempt proceedings were initiated against the appellant who was an elected Mayor of Indore Municipal Corporation, on the ground that he has created hindrance in executing the order passed by the High Court in a public interest litigation being Writ Petition No. 305 of 1996.

5. In that writ petition, on 28-10-1996, the Court had passed the following order:

"(e) IMC and IDA may consider initiation of action in regard to matters particularised in paras.6(v) and 60 above without pause or procrastination in accordance with law. But matters, enormous in extent and undeniably sources of corruption and destroyers of rule of law, need to be tackled in a comprehensive manner to assure the people that law is not the respecter of persons and to prove Oliver Goldsmith who held that Laws grind the poor and rich men rule the law and Lord Kernes, who opined that Men will do the rational thing but only after exploring all other alternatives, WRONG. Extent of evil has gone up like Nuk Vomics and permits no recess or holiday in this behalf. We, therefore, direct, the Chief Secretary of Respondent 1 (State of M.P.) to constitute within 30 days from today two high powered committees, one for IMC and the other for IDA, not as a manoeuvre to buy time but as a method to mortalise all illegalities and irregularities, to investigate promptly into the matters chronicled in paras.6(v) and 60 of this petition as also other matters as may be deemed fit and necessary to ascertain the acts ill done and to identify the officers/employees/persons for appropriate action as may be considered necessary in reasonable time without discrimination but within parameters of law and procedure"

6. After passing of the order, the authorities of the Municipal Corporation started demolishing the unauthorised construction. However, on 29-10-1996, one of the corporators Smt Ravindra Kaur Saluja who was one of the tenants of the house under demolition requested the appellant on telephone that some time be given to the residents whose houses, shops were being demolished so that they can remove their belongings and household articles. In this view of the matter, on 30-10-1996, the appellant requested the authorities concerned to grant some time on humanitarian ground to the occupants whose houses were to be demolished. This aspect was reported in the newspaper under the caption "MAYOR PROVES TO BE A STUMBLING BLOCK IN ANTI ENCROACHMENT DRIVE -- GIVE ENCROACHERS MORE TIME, SAYS MAYOR."

7. On the basis of the said news item, contempt proceedings were initiated on 31-10-1996 against the appellant.

8. In our view, prima facie there is no question of initiating any contempt proceedings in a case where the Mayor of the city requests the authorities to give some time for vacating the premises and for removing the household articles of the occupants whose houses were being demolished. In any set of circumstances, it cannot be said that he committed any breach of the order passed by the High Court, because as quoted above the High Court only directed Indore Municipal Corporation and Indore Development Authority that they may initiate action in regard to matters of removing unauthorised encroachment.

9. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court convicting and sentencing the appellant under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be justified by any standard. Hence, the impugned order is set aside.

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Amount of fine deposited by the appellant be released in his favour.