1. The above Contempt Application has been filed to punish the respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruppathur, North Arcot District, for committing contempt of orders of this Court dated 21.8.1992 made in W.P. No. 5570 of 1992. By that order, I set aside the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the respondent herein dated 15.10.1991, by which the respondent herein has rejected the applicant's request for the issue of community certificate on the basis of a secret enquiry conducted by him. This Court held that the respondent herein has no business to conduct a secret enquiry behind the back of the applicant and come to the conclusion that the applicant does not belong to Kurumans community. I further held that the procedure adopted by the respondent herein is not only illegal but also against the principles of natural justice. I also held that the applicant's father and his brother have certificates to the effect that they belong to Kurumans community, that the applicant's paternal uncle is also working in the Income-tax Department and that on the basis of the certificate possessed by the applicant's maternal uncle, he is working in the Central Government. It is further observed by me in that order that this Court has taken the view that if a person's close relatives have certificates that they belong to a particular community, that person should also be deemed to be belonging to the said community. I also referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 2428 of 1983 dated 1.8.1984, the relevant portion of which is extracted in my judgment in W.P. No. 5570 of 1992. Finally, I held that taking into consideration that the applicant has come to this Court a number of times on the very same issue, a direction shall issue to the educational authorities to admit the applicant herein in the B.E. degree course in the next academic year provided the concerned authorities found that the applicant belongs to Kurumans community. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 28.12.1992 was passed by the respondent herein by which again, on the basis of a secret enquiry, the respondent has rejected the request of the applicant for issue of community certificate. It is on this cause of action the above contempt application has been filed.

2. Notice was issued by me on 29.4.1993 and the matter came up for hearing on 15.6.1993. On that date, the respondent appeared before me and tried to explain his stand. I was not at all convinced with the explanation offered by the respondent. In my opinion, the respondent, by the impugned order, which is passed in disobedience of my order in W.P. No. 5570 of 1992, has put the applicant to great prejudice and hardship. Even though the applicant has secured admission in Engineering College as early as 1991, she was not able to attend the course except for a short period of approximately two months. In my opinion, the applicant has produced enough materials before the respondent to show that she belongs to Kurumans community. The details of the materials are furnished in the applicant's letter dated 12.10.1992 to the respondent, which is at page 43 of the typed set of papers. The applicant along with that letter has submitted the community certificates of his uncle, uncle's daughter, service roll of his uncle, community certificates of her uncles, brothers, applicants father, uncle, mother's brother, sister, etc. Apart from this, she has also filed the enquiry report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruppathur, besides the sale deeds, title deeds and the judgment of the Madras High Court. Several other certificates more fully mentioned as item Nos. 8 to 11 in that letter have also been furnished to the authority concerned. On the basis of this evidence, it cannot be disputed that the applicant belongs to Kurumans community.

3. It is also seen from the affidavit of the applicant filed in support of this application that the respondent has issued a notice to the applicant on 28.9.1992 calling upon her to produce all materials in support of her claim for obtaining a community certificate, to the effect that she belongs to Kurumans community. As stated above, the uncle of the applicant met the respondent and produced all the documentary proof in support of the applicant's claim. At that time, the respondent desired to peruse the original documents but the uncle of the applicant stated that the original documents were not with him at present and that the applicant was prepared to furnish the originals if the respondent wanted to peruse them. But, without any further enquiry or any notice to the applicant, the respondent has passed the impugned order dated 28.12.1992. From this order it is apparent that the respondent, in violation of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 5570 of 1992, has again conducted a secret enquiry. The impugned order itself states that the respondent has conducted a secret enquiry. It is further averred in the affidavit that the respondent has violated the orders of this Court and has committed gross contempt of the orders of this Court and hence, the respondent is liable to be punished for committing contempt of the orders of this Court.

4. The respondent has also filed a detailed counter affidavit. I am not impressed with the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. The respondent is now trying to justify his illegal action by filing a detailed counter affidavit which contains matters which are not germane or useful for the disposal of the present contempt application. I have gone through the counter affidavit and I am not satisfied with the explanation offered. Hence, I find the respondent guilty of disobedience of the directions contained in my order dated 21-8-1992 in W.P. No. 5570 of 1992. However, the respondent appeared before me and sincerely-regretted for what all happened and also expressed his oral and written unconditional apology. In para. 12 of the counter affidavit he has stated as follows:

If this Hon'ble Court finds that the respondent disobeyed the orders of this Hon'ble Court, this respondent submits that disobedience is neither wilful nor wanton and also prayed an unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court. The respondent submits that he has the highest regard and respect to the orders of this Hon'ble Court and never intended to disobey the orders of this Hon'ble Court.

In view of the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent, the same is accepted because I find it bona fide and sincere, and I close this contempt application. There will be no order as to costs.

5. The respondent has passed the impugned order in violation of the directions of this Court in W.P. No. 5570 of 1992, after conducting a secret enquiry again. In my earlier order, I have specifically stated that the respondent has no business to conduct a secret enquiry behind the back of the applicant and come to the conclusion that the applicant does not belong to Kurumans community. Since the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of my earlier order, the same is liable to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent of conducting a fresh enquiry on the basis of the materials already filed and available on record.

6. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 151, C.P.C., are wide and are not subject to any limitation. Where, in violation of any order passed by this Court, something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court as a policy to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. The inherent power will not only be available in such cases but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interest of justice. Since the respondent herein has, in utter violation of my order, conducted a secret enquiry behind the back of the applicant and the applicant has been affected because of that order, the applicant can approach this Court and ask for relief on the ground that the orders passed by the respondent would be destructive of her stand-point, and this Court, on a consideration of the entire circumstances and facts, will have to pay back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to the passing of the order. Hence, the applicant is to be put back in the same position as she stood immediately prior to the passing of the impugned order by the respondent.

7. It is also seen from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manoharlal v. Seth Hiralal : (1962) 1 S.C.R. (Supp.) 450, that a view was expressed that Section 151, C.P.C., itself said that nothing in the Code should be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. It, therefore, follows that Order 39, C.P.C., should not be considered as placing any limit on the scope of the inherent power under Sec 151, C.P.G A Full Bench of this Court in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association A.I.R. 1991 Mad. 323 has held that besides the remedy provided under Rule 2-A of Order 39, C.P.C., the Court can also exercise inherent powers and that the powers under Arts.215 and 223 of the Constitution are also available to High Court to undo the wrong. Respectfully applying the ratio laid down in the above decisions, I have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh enquiry.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh enquiry on the basis of the materials already available on record. The applicant is also permitted to produce before the enquiring authority any other document or certificate in her custody in proof of her claim that she belongs to Kurumans-Scheduled Tribe community. Since the respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruppathur, North Arcot district, has already dealt with the matter, it is not just and fair to again direct the very same officer viz. Mr. P. Sivasankaran, I.A.S., Assistant Collector, Thiruppathur, North Arcot Ambedkar District, to conduct an enquiry afresh and pass orders. Hence, I direct the Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District to nominate some other officer of the same cadre to enquire into this matter and pass orders. The Collector shall appoint an officer within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order from this Court. The Officer so appointed shall dispose of the matter within two months thereafter. This direction shall be punctually complied with by all the authorities concerned.