ORDER
G.S.N. Tripathi, J.
1. In this contempt petitation the petitioner has prayed that the contemnors be punished for disobedience of the order dated 21 -12-1995, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3825 of 1995, notice of which was served on 26-12-1995, 11-1-1996 etc.
2. Committee of Management of the Cooperative Sugarcane Supply Society Ltd., Bareilly, through its Chairman Sri Mani Raj Singh (petitioner No. 2) filed a Writ Petition No. 37852 of 1995 against four respondents, namely, State of Uttar Pradesh, through Joint Secretary, Sugarcane, U.P., Lucknow (respondent No. 1), Sugarcane Commissioner and Registrar, Co-operative Sugarcane Society, U.P. Lucknow (respondent No. 2), District Sugarcane Officer/Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Sugarcane Society, Bareilly (respondent No. 3) and J. K. Sugar Industries, Sindhauli Road, Meerganj, Bareilly, through its General Manager (respondent No. 4). The petitioners prayed for the following:
(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 4th of July, 1995 and 6th of Nov. 1995 (Annexures 12 and 16 respectively to the Writ Petition).
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to proceed further in pursuance of the impugned orders and the same may be kept stayed during the pendency of the present petition before this court.
(iii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to act in accordance with law.
(iv) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(v) to award costs of the petition to the petitioners.
3. The main allegations are that the petitioner No. 1 is a Co-operative Society, which is managed according to its bye laws. The petitioner No. 2 is the Chairman of the said Society. The Society consists of member of agriculturists, specially the sugarcane growers. The respondent No. 4 wrote a letter dated 11-3-1995 (Annexure 1) informing the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 that in order to augment production of sugarcane, the respondent No. 4 has made arrangements for supply of seeds against which the subsidy would also be available. It also requested the petitioners to supply adequate quantity of sugarcane. On 28-4-1995, through a letter written by the petitioners, the petitioners assured adequate supply of sugarcane to the respondent No. 4. A similar engagement was received by the petitioners through a letter written by respondents. The petitioners assured respondents that required quantity of sugarcane would be supplied by them. Respondent No. 4, ' through its letter dated 27-4-1995 (Annexure 5) and issued sum of Rs. 25 lakhs to the society of the petitioners for distribution of the amount to the farmers and sugarcane growers, in order to encourage them to grow more production and help the respondent No. 4 in getting adequate quantity of sugarcane. Respondent No. 4 has also requested the petitioners to accept the membership of the respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 further requested on 25-7-1995 to the petitioners to enroll 275 members in its society to ensure proper supply of the sugarcane. Now the political equation has changed and members of the BJ.P. (Bhartiya Janata Party) have assumed Govt. in Lucknow. The M.Ps. and M.L.As. of the BJ.P. are trying to influence the decision of the respondents. Under their pressure, respondent No. 3, has passed the order for bifurcating of the society into two. The petitioners, through their letter dated 12-7-1995 have requested the Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow to cancel the order of bifurcation dated 4-7-1995. The society of the petitioner is affiliated to the Distt. Co-operative Bank, Meerganj, Bareilly and the Bank gives loan and other facilities to the members through the society. If the alleged bifurcation as ordered by the respondent No. 2, is allowed to continue, the petitioners shall suffer immeasurable loss. The petitioners moved writ petition No. 21495 of 1995, which was disposed of by an order dated 8-8-1995 passed by the High Court observing that since an appeal lies to the State Govt. against any order passed by the respondent No. 2, hence the appeal should be filed. Then the petitioners moved the State Govt. in appeal. But under political pressure, they could not get any justice and the petitioners appeal was dismissed by the State Govt.
4. Immediately after knowing about the failure of their appeal, the petitioners in their whole house meeting resolved to challenge the order of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 . That order of the State Govt. dismissing the appeal, is malafide and also illegal. Similarly, the order of bifurcation of the society passed by the respondent No. 2 and' duly corroborated by the State Govt., respondent No. 1, is illegal. Thus the orders dated4th July, 95, passed by the respondent No. 2, Sugarcane Commissioner U.P., Lucknow and the order dated 6-9-1996, passed by the respondent No. 1 in appeal, are sought to be quashed. There is also a prayer for issue of a mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed further in pursuance of the impugned orders aforesaid to these orders be stayed.
5. With these allegations, the writ petition was filed on 20-12-1995. On 21-12-1995, this Court passed the following order.
Learned standing Counsel is granted three weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. The petitioner is directed to serve on respondent No. 4 personally within two weeks and they may file counter affidavit thereafter. List in the week commencing 15th January, 1996.
On the same day, on the prayer of passing an interim order, this Court passed the following order:-
Until further orders of the Court, operation of the impugned orders dated 4-7-1995 and 16-11-1995 shall remain stayed.
6. The petitioners served the order of this Court upon the respondents, which is admitted by them. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, filed by respondent No. 2, it has been admitted that the interim order dated 21-12-1995 was served upon him on 26-12-1995. Similarly, respondent No. 3 Sri Sultan Ahmad, District Sugar Cane Commissioner has admitted in paragraph 8 that the interim order dated 21-12-1995, was served upon him on 26-12-1995.
7. Petitioners further alleged that the stay order of this Court was served upon all other respondents. Despite the service of the stay order, the respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to the society that some of the clerks have been transferred in the newly constituted society as a result of bifurcation, vide letter dated 4-1-1996 (Annexure 5). Again on 24-1-1996, the respondent No. 2 ordered that the employees of the joint society should be transferred to the newly constituted society. The contemnors bifurcated the society on 2-3-1996. In pursuance of this bifurcation, contemnor No. 2, inaugurated the society on 8-3-1996. The petitioners have always been reminding the respondents not to precipitate the situation and not to proceed further with their act of bifurcating the society. This way, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have been repeatedly violating the order of this Court and they deserve to be punished for contempt according to law.
8. This Court directed that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 should show cause why they may not be punished for having committed contempt of this Court. They shall appear in person before this Court on 11th July, 1996. It is further significant to note that as yet, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or any of the respondents in the main writ petition No. 37852 of 1995. Similarly, as yet, no prayer has been made by any of the respondents to either stay the operation of this Court's order dated 21-12-1995 or to review it. Therefore so far as the main writ petition is concerned, it continues to be on the record and the orders dt. 21-12-1995 passed by this Court continues to be operative.
8A. The respondent No. 2 Sri Surendra Pal Singh, Dy. Cane Commissioner has filed his counter affidavit in the present petition of contempt. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, he has said that the Cane Commissioner had issued a notice under Section 126(1) of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act calling upon the petitioner society to divide itself into two societies. Against that notice, the petitioners had filed a writ petition No. 21455 of 1995 before this Court, which was decided by this Court with a direction to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the State Govt. They filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the State Govt. The main thrust of his reply is that the Co-operative Cane Development Society, Meerganj, Bareilly was registered by the Registrar on 30-11-1995 i.e. prior to the order of this Court on 21 -12-1995. This order was neither impugned nor any order was passed by the Court in the writ petition No. 37852 of 1995. Thus a new Co-operative Society had already come into existence prior to 21-12-1995. The respondent No. 2 is not a party in this writ petition. Therefore, the order passed by this Court does not bind him. The respondent No. 2 has not passed any order transferring employees. The order dated 28-12-1995, transferring some of the employees, was passed by respondent No. 3. On coming to know of this order of the High Court dated 21-12-1995, the respondent No. 2 directed respondent No. 3 to take all precautions in issuing letters to avoid disobedience of the High Court's order. This letter was written on 31st March, 1995 .This way, respondent No. 2 has not committed any disobedience of the order of the High Court. The contempt petition is wholly misconceived against him and deserves to be dismissed.
9. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 on 23-8-1996, again he has said that in the main petition, he was not arrayed as a party. Therefore, any order passed in it does not bind him. After passing of the order dated 30-11-1995, the notice dated 4-7-1995 ceased to exist. But this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioners. At the end, he says that if at all, any disobedience of this Court' submitted order is proved, he tenders apology for that.
10. Respondent No. 3 Sri Sultan Ahmad has mostly taken the same pleas as done by respondent No. 2, as noted above. He admits that he received this Court's order dated 21-12-1995 on 26-12-1995 and alleges that before that the bifurcation had already taken place. Counter affidavit in the main petition could not be filed because the copy of the writ petition had not been made available to him. However, after receipt of the copy of the impugned order dated 21-12-1995 on 26-12-1995, he directed the Secretary of the Cooperative Cane Development Union Meerganj, Bareilly to take steps to file counter affidavit, by an order dated 18-3-1996. The efforts should be made to ensure that the said order passed by this Court dated 21-12-1995 be vacated. Suitable legal action be taken. Incidentally, it is important to note at this very stage that respondent No. 3, who was arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the main petition himself took no steps to file counter affiedavit or to apply for vacation of the interim order. He allowed the paper tiger to take note of the things (Annexure 5 to his Counter affidavit). The cane Commissioner/Registrar Co-operative Societies has, by his letter, dated 2-12-1995 authorised the Dy. Cane Commissioner to take steps regarding the division of Society. But no authority whatsoever was conferred upon the respondent No. 3 to take any steps regarding the same nor actually, the deponent has taken any steps towards division of the society. The letter dated 2-3-1996 was sent by him merely for ensuring proper supply of sugarcane to the factory concerned and it is totally incorrect to allege that the society has been bifurcated by virtue of the said letter. So far as the inauguration of the society and issuance of letters are concerned, it is stated that the deponent was merely posted as Distt. Cane Commissioner and it was his duty to ensure that proper arrangements are made for the visit of the Cane Commissioner, who is the departmental head of the deponent and he has played actually no role regarding the inauguration of the society aforesaid as the programs of the Cane Commissioner was obtained by the Management of the newly formed society, which had already been registered on 30-11-1995. Thus the respondent No. 3 has committed no contempt. Whatsoever orders have been passed by the deponent (respondent No. 3), it is merely on the direction of his superior officers and thus he has not played any individual role. In the end, he also tenders a conditional apology that, if at all contempt is proved, against him, he should be exonerated by accepting his so-called apology.
11. Thus, it is clearly established that this Court in Writ Petition No. 27852 of 1995, filed by the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, had passed the interim order dated 21-12-1995 that till further orders, operation of the impugned orders dated 4-7-1995 and 6-11-1995 shall remain stayed. It is again admitted that the petitioners had served a copy of this Court's order aforesaid upon the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on 26-12-1995. Again it is established that as yet, neither any counter affidavit has been filed in the main petition nor any application for recalling the order of this Court dated 21-12-1995, has been filed so far by any of the respondents.
12. The respondents have been proceeding with the bifurcation scheme despite the knowledge of this Court's order right from 26-12-1995, therefore, it has to be decided as to whether the said acts committed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, amount to contempt of this Court's order or not.
13. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Addl. Standing Counsel and Sri Shashi Nandan along with other learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2 was that since the respondent No. 2 was not a party in the main petition, therefore, the order dated 21-12-1995 does not bind them. This illusion of the respondent No. 2 needs to be removed at first.
14. My attention has been invited to a ruling of this Court reported in Charma Deo Singh v. Satish Kumar 1985 All WC 680. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, the following observations have been made :-
When the State of U.P. and the Additional Disrtrict Magistrate were opposite paties in the writ petition then any order passed by the Court binding them would also bind the officers of the State and their subordinates in rank who are supposed to give effect to the order of the Court. The last man in the administrative heirarchy, who is to comply with the order of the Court, would be bound by the order of the Court as if he was also a party to the writ petition in which the order was passed. Any non-compliance of the order which was to be complied with by the officer or person concerned would render him guilty of the contempt of the Court.
(Emphasis supplied).
Therefore, in view of the said pronouncement of this Court, the technical contention advanced on behalf of respondent No. 2, is rejected.
15. It is clear that once an order was passed on 21-12-1995 staying the operation of the respondents' orders dated 4-7-1995 and 6-11 -1995 and, admittedly, which was served upon respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on 26-12-1995, it was their duty to ensure the compliance thereof and not to do any act in letter or spirit, which could come within the defintion of avoidance of the said order of this Court or intentionally flouting the same. Annexure 5, is the letter dated 4-1-1996, written by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner No. 1, whereby the respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 29-12-1995, whereby he had transferred Sri Ghanistha Pratap Rai, clerk and Sri Ram Gopal and Sri Naresh Kumar Rastogi, as part time clerks from the Sugarcane Samity, Bareilly (petitioner No. 1) to the newly created Sugarcane Society, Meerganj, Bareilly. By this letter, respondent No. 2 mandatorily directed the respondent No. 3 to relieve those employees and submit a compliance report without delay. This letter is pregnant with meaning. As observed earlier, the respondent No. 2 had been served on 26-12-1995, a copy of this order dated 21-12-1995. Immediately after service, respondent No. 2 passed the aforesaid order to ensure that the order of this Court dated 21-12-1995 was totally disobeyed. In the teeth of the knowledge of this Court's order, the respondent No. 2 should have directed himself or any one of his agencies to move the High Court for recalling the order dated 21-2-1995 first and till the order was recalled, by this Court he should have withdrawn all steps which could directly or indirectly influence and affect adversely the compliance of the order dated 21-12-1995. But instead of doing that, he did just the reverse. He proceeded to get the orders dated 4-7-1995 and 6-11-1995 enforced, which had been specifically stayed by this Court on 21-12-1995. Respondent No. 2 is a senior officer, having put in not less than 10 years of service in the department. He is supposed to know the gravity of disobedience of any order of the High Court. He is further supposed to know that any effort made by him for disobedience of the order of the High Court amounts to playing with fire. But he proceeded to do the same and has wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the order of this Court by issuing the letter dated 4-1-1996. It is impossible to believe that the respondents did not know the probable consequence of this intentional disobedience of this Court's order by him.
16. Immediately after knowing of the order dated 4-1-1996 (Annexure 5 to the present petition), whereby the employees had been transferred, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 6-1-1996 (Annexure 6) to the respondent No. 2 reiterating that this Court had already stayed the operation of the orders dated 4-7-1995 and 6-11-1995 and he should not do anything which wants to give effect to those orders and refrain from transferring the employees from the petitioner No. 11 to the newly created society at Meerganj. But even this request of the petitioners fell on deaf ears and could not get even a scantiest regard at the hands of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to whom a copy of this letter was sent.
17. Not only this, the respondent No. 2 doggedly went on violating this Court's order. He wrote another letter dated 24-1-1996 (Annexure 7) to the petitioner, directing him to relieve the aforesaid employees from their office to join in the newly created society at Meerganj. This letter again shows that he was trying to effectuate the orders dated 4-9-1995 and 6-11-1995 (stayed by the Court) intentionally and knowingly.
18. The petitioners on knowing about this order, again drew the attention of the respondent by their letter dated 29-1-1995 (Annexure 7A) that they were expected to ensure that the order of this Court dated 21-12-1995 was not disobeyed. But unfortunately, they were doing just the reverse, which might compel the petitioner to move the High Court for violation of this Court's order aforesaid.
19. Contemnors Nos. 2 and 3 again proceeded in their subsequent efforts to see that the orders of this Court were violated. Respondent No. 3 wrote a letter dated 8-3-1996 (Annexure 8) to the respondent No. 4 that on the direction of the respondent No. 2, he was passing the order bifurcating the society, petitioner No. 1 in this manner. The villages Nagaria, Hilmans, Khanpur Bareilly, Dhanera and Sathera would be attached with Sugarcane Society, Meerganj and the remaining three villages, namely, Piparia, Baragaon and Barsher would continue to remain attached with Sugarcane Society, Bareilly (petitioner No. 1). Not only this, a copy of this letter was sent to the respondent No. 2 and one Hon'ble M.L.C. (Member of Legislative Council) U.P. In the main petition as well as in the contempt petition, it has been alleged that respondents 2 and 3 were working under the pressure and influence of political functionaries, including the aforesaid M.L.C.
20. I do not want to go into the merits of the fact as to whether there was actually a compulsion or pressure otherwise exercised by the political authorities against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and they were working under their influence despite the order of this Court. I am simply mentioning this fact that sending copy of this letter dated 8-3-1996 (Annexure 8) to the leaders of the political party was giving a credence to the allegations made by the petitioners.
21. This way, writing of the letter, Annexure 8, dated 8-3-1996 brings another link in the chain of their acts, which were directly in opposition and defiance of this Court's order dated 21-12-1995.
22. It is alleged in paragraph 13 of the contempt petition that in pursuance of this bifurcation, the contemnors inaugurated the society (Meerganj). A copy of the inauguration programme is annexed as Annexure 8 to the contempt petition. The respondent No. 2 has directed the respondent No. 3 on 8-3-1996 (Annexure 8) that the villages Nagaria, Hilmans, Khanmurla Arel, Pipariya Uprula and Baragaon would be attached to the petitioner No. 1 and villages Dhanetta, Sahorah and Darser would remain with the other society. The respondent No. 3 willingly co-operated with him without any demur or hesitation.
23. The respondent No. 3 issued an invitation (Annexure 8A) that the newly constituted Cooperative Socieity, Meerganj would be inaugurated by Dr. Om Prakash, I.A.S. Sugarcane Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh at 10 a.m. at Samudaik Vikas Karyalaya, Meerganj. The function would be presided over by Sri Jagdish Singh Brar, a leader of Janata Dal, U.P. Vidhan Parishad requesting everybody to participate in this function. Those who had extended the invitation, included the respondent No. 3, Dr. Sultan Ahmad, Sri Lakhan Singh, Adhayaksh and Sri Devi Das, Sachiv of the newly constituted Society, Meerganj. This was another act of defiance and disobedience and wilful contempt of this Court's order, being perpetrated by respondent No. 3. Still how unfortunate it is that the respondent No. 3, says that he has not committed contempt of this Court's' order, whereas even an ordinary person can understand as to what respondent No. 3 Sri Sultan Ahmad was doing. Despite knowledge of this Court's order preventing him from doing anything which could directly or indirectly go in pursuance of the orders dated 4-7-1995 and 6-11-1995, the operation of which had been stayed by this Court on 21-12-1995.
24. The petitioners went on reminding the respondents that there was a stay order of this Court, which should be respected by them, instead of flouting it. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 7-3-1996 (Annexure (9) to the respondents 2 and 3. Even then they did not relent.
25. Letter (Annexure 9A) (the date not clear but a reading of it shows that it was written after 2-3-1996) is also an effort made by the petitioners to remind the respondents again and again regarding the existence of the order dated 21-12-1995 and the fact that its violation would not be in the longer interest of the respondents themselves. ';
26. Both the respondents in their affidavits have repeatedly stressed that since the Meerganj Society was registered on 30-11 -1995, i.e. prior to the impugned order dated 21-12-1995, passed by this Court, and since the registration of the society i has not been challenged by the petitioners, therefore, respondents were proceeding in the belief that the High Court's order dated 21-12-1995 is not reliable any more vide the following words used by the respondent No. 3 in paragraph 7 of his counter affidavit, dated 4-8-1996.
It is further stated that this Hon'ble Court did not pass any order staying the registration of the new society and in view of which the interim order dated 21-12-1995 cannot be relied upon by the petitioner for any purpose whatsoever.
Perhaps the respondent No. 3 wants this Court to believe that since the registration of the Meerganj Society has not been challenged, therefore, the order dated 21-12-1995 passed by this Court became a waste paper. Unfortunately, it is not so. Whether the registration of the Meerganj Society is challenged or not, its effect might be upon the main petition. But so long as this order dated 21-12-1995 is intact, as it has remained operative till today. It holds the field if anybody wants to disobey it, he does it so at its own risk. But the validity of the order dated 21-12-1995 cannot be whittled down in a casual manner. If the respondents believed that their point was correct, they should have immediately rushed to the High Court for vacating the stay order dated 21-12-1995. Instead of doing that, they continued to slumber in their cosy bed rooms, thinking as if the High Court's order had no meaning and they were at liberty to proceed in any way they liked. This is another most unfortunate feature of the case, that senior Govt. functionaries were disregarding this Court's order in such a casual manner. If this spirit continues, the orders of the Court would have no meaning and a total chaos will prevail in the society. That would be the most unfortunate day for this country when such senior officers start behaving like that as done by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in this case.
27. Instead of taking any prompt action after the receipt of the order dated 21-12-1995, respondent No. 3 did not do any act towards the compliance of the same. But he passed an order dated 18-3-1996 (Annexure 5 to the C.A.I) of the affidavit of Sri Sultan Ahmed, by writing a letter to Sri Devi Das, Sachiv, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samity that it was essential to get the order dated 21-12-1995, passed by this Court, vacated and necesary act should be done towards that. He forgot that he had received this Court's order on 26-12-1995 and kept on slumbering till 18-3-1996. Even then, instead of writing to the higher authorities or proceeding to this Court for clarification of this order, he slightly got up on 18-3-1996. Yet he did nothing towards the vacation of this Court's order. He did not seek permission of the higher authorities as what should be done in the teeth of the order of this Court. Therefore, this casual effort by the respondent No. 3 in writing the letter dated 18-3-1996 suffers from many defects; firstly it cannot be said to be a prompt action on the part of the respondent No. 3 after the receipt of the order dated 21-12-1995. Secondly, it cannot be said to be an effective effort made by the respondent No. 3 to ensure the compliance of this Court's order or to seek further directions from the higher departmental authorities or seeking legal opinion from District Law Officers, like Distt. Govt. Counsel or any other counsel of repute as to what should be done in this matter. What he did was totally the contrary and he had done everything by that time in disobedience of. the order of this Court dated 21 -12-1995, is that he had already written letter, Annexure 5, dated 18-3-1996 referred to above, issued invitations and also got the new society inaugurated by his superiors. Once he ensured that the order of this Court was totally violated and rather the stayed orders dated 4-7-1995 and 6-11-1995 had been implemented (Anexures 8A, 8B, 8, 7 and 6) ordering the transfer of the employees from the petitioner No. 1 to the new society, he thought it proper to write as late as on 18-3-1996, a letter to the Meerganj Society to see that the order of this Court was vacated. This is a lip service rather a very cunning device to deceive this Court as and when the matter was taken in contempt jurisdiction, to show that he did eveything he could by directing the Meerganj Society to ensure that the order of this Court dated 21-12-1996 was vacated and himself was not doing in this connection. It is clearly an eye wash. This is really cruel joke of the respondent No. 3 towards the order of this Court dated 21-12-1995. Perhaps, he thinks that this cunning device would be helpful to him in confusing this Court about his real intentions and actions. Unfortunately such a senior officer, like respondent No. 3, thinks like it. Nothing can be done and said except saying that his attitude was callous, disregardful and prima facie per se contemptuous towards the order of this Court. This way, it is clearly established that respondent No. 3 has committed gross contempt of this Court by his multiple activities as noted above.
28. Now, I come to the role played by Sri Surendra Pal Singh, Dy. Cane Commissioner, Bareilly. His first objection that since he was not a party to the main petition, the order dated 21-12-96 does not bind him, it has already been rejected earlier. He also tries to take some support from the fact that Meerganj Society had been registered on 30-11-95, i.e. much prior to the order dated 21-12-95. Since that registration has not been challenged, therefore, the order dated 21-12-95 does not bind him.
29. I have dealt with this objection while dealing with the counter affidavit of respondent No. 3. Those observations apply to the respondent No. 2 also mutatis mutandis. I find that he is also a very senior officer, who must have put in not less than 15 years of service in the department. He is the immediate superior to respondent No. 3. Therefore, there should have been a qualitative difference in the attitude of respondent No. 2 from that of respondent No. 3. But to my utter surprise, I find that his conduct is worse than that of respondent No. 3.
30. He also received the notice of this Court's order on 26-12-95 as admitted by him. He has done nothing towards the vacation of the order dated 21-12-95 passed by this Court. By writing the letter Annexure C.A. 2, dated 21-3-96 to the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 2 has also casually noted that efforts should be made to ensure that no contempt of the High Court's order dated 21-12-95 is done. As seen earlier, before writing this letter dated 21-3-96, he had done everything, which was needed to violate this Court's order dated 21-12-95 and implemented the orders dated 4-7-95 and 6-11-95, as noted above, operation of which were stayed. Even the order passed by respondent No. 3 (CA-3) ordering that certain employees should be relieved was intimated to respondent No. 2, as a copy of this order was sent to him. If respondent No. 2 was really serious and wanted to obey this Court's order, he should have immediately placed an embargo upon respondent No. 3 from doing any such act. But instead of doing that, he kept mum. Not only this, in the supplementary counter affidavit, dated 23-8-96, in paragraph 11, at page 5, he says as follows:-
That in fact, after passing of the order dated 30-11 -95, the notice dated 4-7-95 ceased to exist. If the said fact would have been brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court, this Hon'ble Court may not have passed the interim order dated 21-12-95.
Unfortunately, respondent No. 2 does not think that if an order has been passed by the High Court on some information on facts, it could be recalled by the High Court alone. So if he genuinely believed that the order of the High Court was not correct, he should have rushed to this Court. But he did not do that. He should not have stayed quietly at home believing that the High Court' submitted order was a wrong one and it could be ignored safely and without any hesitation. Unfortunately, this was a hopeless and unfortunate approach of the respondent No. 2 towards the order of this Court. Now he wants to escape from the consequences of the acts done by him for the breach and disobedience of this Court's order. He cannot be allowed to succeed in this game.
31. I have already mentioned some of the letters issued by the respondent No. 2 earlier. Instead of repeating my observations, I am simply referring to those letters written or directed by respondent No. 2, which amounts to gross contempt of this Court's order.
32. Firstly in this chain is Annexure 5 to the contempt petition dated 4-1-96 transferring certain officials from the petitioner No. 1 to the newly constituted Meerganj Society and ordering the petitioner society to at once relieve them. Upon the receipt of this letter, the petitioner No. 1 expressed its own difficulties in relieving those officials (Annexure 6, dated 6-1-96). On 4-1-96 again the respondent No. 2 wrote a letter dated 24-1 -96 ordering the petitioner No. 1 to relieve the employees. The petitioner again brought to his notice the existence of this Court's order with a request that he should not flout it (letter dated 29-1-95, Annexure 7A). Annexure 8 is the letter written by respondent No. 3 executing the bifurcation scheme in pursuance of the letter of respondent No. 2, dated 1 -3-96. Lastly, the petitioner wrote letter (Annexure 9A in the 1st week of March, 96 to the respondent No. 2 to ensure that the High Court's order was not flouted by him. But even that yielded no fruits. Respondent No. 2, on 1 -3-96, directed the division of the aforesaid society, which was implemented through respondent No. 3. Even the letter dated written by respondent No. 3 was intimated to the respondent No. 2. So he was in full know of the fact that certain orders had been passed by respondent No. 3. If he really thought that respondent No. 3 was doing wrong, he should have stayed the operation of his order. But instead of doing that, he rather expressed that he was happy with the acts done by respondent No. 3.
33. Not only this, respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to the petitioner on March 21, 1996 (Annexure 5 RA) Informing him that since the acts were being done by him towards the enforcement of the orders of the Sugarcane Commissioner and after knowing the fact that the Meerganj Society had already been registered, therefore, he should not murmur against that and further informed him that since the Meerganj Society had been registered on 30-11-95 before the High Court's order dated 21-12-95, therefore, any act done by him could not amount to disobedience of this Court's order. He was further warned that he should not take any step which amounted to interfering with the work done by the respondents.
34. A detailed and intensive examination of the facts proved and established on the record, clearly goes to show that respondents 2 and 3 have committed gross contempt of this Court's order dated 21-12-95. Instead of feeling sorry for that, they have all along tried to defend their acts, which makes the contempt still more gross, wilful and intentional.
35. As observed earlier, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are very senior officers of the department. Their every act and omission has a percolating effect upon their subordinates and society. Therefore before embarking upon to effect such' a division and the defiance of this Court's order, they should think thrice that their conduct does not have any such adverse effect, upon all those concerned, otherwise when their subordinates think that the Court's order can be easily flouted, there will be an end to any effort of the State to establish a rule of law in the society. It is needless to remind them of an adage 'you are very big, no doubt, you are very important, no doubt, but the law is bigger and more important than you.' Therefore, a very serious view has to be taken regarding such a reckless and intentional disobedience of this Court's order at the hands of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Their apology, as submitted by them, is not unconditional. Rather it is very casual. They have defended and justified their acts, instead of feeling sorry for that and in the end they have said that, if at all, any contempt is established, they should be exonerated by accepting their apology. This is thus not an apology at all.
36. I do not think it is proper to accept their apology because they were not serious towards it. As observed earlier, till today, no counter affidavit has been filed in the main petition, nor any application moved in the High Court to recall or review the order dated 21-12-95. This is all the more makes the conduct of the respondents very reprehensible and contemptuous.
37. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, I find that the tendency towards disobedience of this Court's order is increasing. A time has come that the Court should cry loudly:-Thus far, and no further, if you play fiddle with the Court's order, you will have to burn your fingers and nothing short of it.
38. Respondents Sharveshri S. P. Singh, Dy. Sugarcane Commissioner, Bareilly and Sultan Ahmad Distt. Cane Officer, Bareilly are herewith found guilty of gross contempt of this Court's order dated 21-12-96 and wilful disobedience of the same. They, are sentenced to undergo 4 months simple imprisonment and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-each. On failure to pay the fine, each one of them shall undergo further One month's simple imprisonment.
39. The respondents are present in the Court. They shall be taken into custody at once to serve out the sentences awarded to them by this Court. Petition is finally disposed of. Costs easy.