As it appears, only a bald statement was made by learned counsel appearing for the accused to the effect that though there is stay against the impugned order, the concerned forest official is refusing to implement the order of the trial Court. It is not comprehended as to how the concerned forest official is supposed to implement the order of the trial Court when admittedly an order of stay was operating. Moreover, nothing has been specifically stated as regards the so-called nonimplementation of the order. Be that as it may, if an order of stay was operating, the question of implementing the order of the trial court obviously does not arise. As it appears, the above submission has evidently weighed upon the mind of the Court to pass the order directing the trial Court to proceed against the concerned forest official for disobedience of its order in case the order of the trial Court is not given effect to. The order is pre-emptive and speculative in nature rather than one wrought by any compelling necessity. Undoubtedly, law provides for taking harsh/coercive measures for disobedience of judicial orders but, only on clear and cogent proof of such disobedience and not for the mere asking. Even if a prima face case of disobedience is brought to the fore, it is incumbent upon the concerned court to first cause an enquiry into the veracity thereof and thereafter pass appropriate order within the four corners of law.
