Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that this violation would necessitate the respondent-contemnor being punished, or atleast being directed to pass an order afresh, the delay in compliance of the order of this Court is not so inordinate as to justify punishing the second respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, more so as he has tendered his unconditional apology for the lapse on his part. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue assures that the second respondent would be careful in future. I see no reason, therefore, to take action against the second respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act. With regards the submission of Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the second respondent should be directed to pass an order afresh, it must be borne in mind that, while exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court cannot go behind the order, violation of which is alleged in the Contempt Case. The enquiry in, and the order to be passed in, a contempt proceedings is limited only to punish the contemnor for contempt and not to issue any directions, much less an order as sought for by the petitioner.
