Short Note : One Babukhan sold a plot of land to Brahmasingh on 13-5-71. Mutation in favour of Brahmasingh was recorded. Thereafter, Brahmasingh sold the land to Ramshankarsingh on 2-3-73. Mutation of this transfer was also recorded in favour of Ramshankarsingh. It appears, a report had been made that the land belonging to Municipal Corporation had been sold in collusion with the officers of the Municipal Corporation. On this report, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation made an enquiry. In the meantime, Ramshankarsingh instituted a civil suit on 25-11-74 in which he prayed for an injunction, restraining the Commissioner from proceeding against the officers who were alleged to be guilty of collusion in connection with the sale of the land. The injunction application was rejected by the Civil Court by an order dated 2-12-74. The Commissioner, thereafter, proceeded to pass an order by which he held that the mutation in favour of Ramshankarsingh was collusive and bad and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. He also directed that the officers responsible should be departmentally dealt with and all enquiry should be made into the affair. It is against the latter order of the Commissioner that the applicant is aggrieved and contends that it has prejudicially affected his civil and criminal cases and thereby a contempt has been committed of the Civil Court. Held : Having heard the learned counsel for the complainant, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is wholly misconceived. In the first step, the Civil Court had rejected the application for injunction by which the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation was sought to stay his hands. That application having been rejected, we do not see any impediment before the Commissioner to proceed with the matter of which he is a party. Learned counsel on behalf of the complainant stated that the Commissioner had no power to proceed with the matter and order the cancellation of mutation and enquiry against the persons concerned. It was also urged that the person against whom enquiry was to be made were witnesses in the civil suit and the criminal proceedings and this was an indirect method of coercion against them, so that they may not independently give their evidence in the cases. It was also urged that the person against whom enquiry was to be made were witnesses in the civil suit and the criminal proceedings and this was an indirect method of coercion against them, so that they may not independently give their evidence in the cases. If the Commissioner had no power, it was open to the party to challenge the order, but we do not see how the Act will amount to contempt, particularly when in the civil suit, the injunction was sought against him. We also do not see any substance in the contention that the witnesses were influenced by the order of the Commissioner. That being an administrative order, it was open to the Commissioner to deal with them as his subordinates departmentally. We do not think that in the circumstances of the case, any contempt had been made to influence the witnesses. Petition dismissed.