JUDGMENT C. R. Thakur, J —This contempt petition purporting to be under sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed by Shri Bhagat Ram, a Forest contractor, against the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal, the Chief Conservator of Forests and the Conservator of Forests. U has been stated in the petition that in OMPs. No. 174 and 175 of 1977 in Civil Suit No. 10 of 1977, this Court passed an order directing the release of the timber in favour of the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner furnished a security of Rs. 15,000/- to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this High. Court. In compliance with the orders of this Court, the contractor furnished the security in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the satisfaction of the Registrar on 11th of January, 1978. Thereafter the petitioner obtained the orders of release of timber from the Registrar and delivered the same to respondent No. 1, i. e. Shri R. C. Sharma, Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal, and asked him to release the timber. But he refused to do so. Thereafter the petitioner approached respondent No. 2 (the Chief Conservator of Forests) who promised that he would pass the orders. When no orders were passed till 22nd of February, 1978 the petitioner approached the Chief Conservator of Forests, but on that date he also refused to comply with the orders. It is stated that respondent No. 3, who is the Conservator of the area concerned, also passed an order not to release the timber in spite of the orders of this Court. It is in the premises of these facts that the petitioner has moved this application for initiating contempt of court proceedings against the aforesaid three contemners. 2. The respondents denied knowledge of the orders of this Court and further they have said that they had nor in any way disobeyed the orders or committed any wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, and in the end it was averred by all the three contemners in their separate replies that if this Court came to the conclusion that any contempt or disobedience was committed by them, then they tender their unqualified apologies. 3. 3. Today when the case was fixed for hearing, the learned Advocate- General produced a copy of the order dated 18-7-1978 passed by the Conservator of Forests, whereby the property has been ordered to be released incompliance with the orders of this Court against a security of Rs. 15,000/- already furnished by the contractor before the Registrar of this Court. This further goes 10 show that the respondents did not comply with the orders of the Court. It is only on 18th of July, 1978 that they have complied with the orders of the Court, and, only after this contempt proceeding had been initiated and they were directed to appear in person before the Court. The only averment made by the contemners in their replies was that the petitioner had never gone to see them on any dates mentioned in the petition, nor the contemners had received any information about the deposit of the amount of security by the petitioner in the Court. Further that the certified copy of the judgment in OMPs. No. 174 and 175 of 1977 had not been received from the Officer of the Advocate-General till the date they filed the reply (12-4-1978). This averment made by the contemners is not at all believable. The order was passed in the presence of the learned Advocate-General who appeared for the State. The knowledge of the Advocate-General is the knowledge of the State or the Department concerned. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in the Court and he has in quite unmistakable words stated that he had approached the respondents who refused to comply with the orders. The reply filed by the respondent-contemners is not at all convincing. They had the knowledge and the petitioner had also approached them with the order of release from the Registrar of this Court. But despite all that, they declined to release the property. This was really a glaring instance of disobedience by the higher authorities of the Forest Department from whom such a disrespect to the orders of the Court could not be expected. The contemners, however, have tendered unconditional apology. 4. Therefore, in the circumstances, I think that a warning only would be sufficient to be issued to the contemners not to repeat such things in future, I accept the unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by them and discharge the rule. Rule discharged.