SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, J. ( 1 ) ONE Harun Sk. , son of late Jesarat Sk. of Village and P. O. Dunigram, P. S. Rampurhat, Dist. Birbhum, the petitioner has filed this application for taking proceeding for contempt of this Court against the K. G. O. , Halka Camp, Kaluha, Dist.- Birbhum, Manik Let, Monaranjan Let, Tamal Let, Pukhim Let, and Sanatan Let, all sons of late Nepal Let, of Village Purba Gopalpur, P. O. Nonadanga, Dist.- Murshidabad. This application is in the matter of an alleged contumacious act by disturbing and interfering with the possession of the petitioner's alleged land by allegedly destroying the standing paddy crops and mulberry plants grown by the petitioner by the Let respondents as well as by recording the names of alleged respondent Nos. 6 to 10 as bargadars by one Sri N. C. Sarkar, Revenue Officer known as K. G. O. or Halka Officer, Kaluha Camp and further for the alleged willful disobedience by the said respondent No. 4, N. C. Sarkar, K. G. O. or Halka Officer, Kaluha Camp of the orders dated 14th of March, 1979 and 5th of April, 1979 passed by me in C. R. No. 1616 (W) of 1979. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution against an impugned barga recording proceeding in respect of petitioner's land. It is further his case that on the application being moved on the 14th of March, 1979 I had issued a rule Nisi in terms of prayers (a) to (c) of the said petition. It is stated that I further issued an interim order of injunction in terms of prayer (d) for a period of two weeks from the date with liberty to the petitioner to apply on the same application for extension of the same on service on the respondents along with the copies of the writ application. It is, further, stated that I had made it clear that the said order would not prevent the respondents from proceeding afresh in accordance with the directions made by me on 22nd of December, 1978 in C. R. No. 8339 (W) of 1978. It is, further, stated that I had made it clear that the said order would not prevent the respondents from proceeding afresh in accordance with the directions made by me on 22nd of December, 1978 in C. R. No. 8339 (W) of 1978. It is also stated that it was clear that the petitioner would not remove the crops if any on the land in question without giving prior notice to the Junior Land Reforms Officer or his duty authorized officer and before an inventory had been made. The petitioner had set out the prayer (d) in terms of which the order of injunction had been issued. The said prayer was to the following extent: - ? (d ). An interim order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants, sub-ordinates and/or employees from proceeding further and giving effect or further effect to the impugned barga operation proceeding in respect of the petitioner's lands lying and situate within Mouza-Purba Gopalpur, J. L. No. 188, under P. S. Rampurhat, Dist.- Birbhum noted in paragraph 2 of the petition in any manner and in any form till the disposal of the Rule. ? ( 2 ) IT is, further, stated that the said application was disposed of by me on 5th of April, 1979 by direction that the recording of bargadars if any would be done in accordance with the directions made in the order dated 22nd of December, 1978 in C. R. No. 8939 (W) of 1978 if not done earlier. The rule and the application were disposed of as above. In connection with this application I would have occasion to refer to the said order I had made on 22nd of December, 1978 being C. R. No. 8939 (W) of 1978. The said order dated 14th of March, 1979 was duly communicated, according to the petitioner, in the present application, by registered letter of the learned Advocate dated 14th day of March, 1979 to all the respondents. It is, further, alleged that it was served on the respondent No. 4 that is to say the K. G. O. concerned on 21st of March, 1979 and which was also alleged to have been served on the respondent No. 6 on 20th of March, 1979 upon the respondent Nos. 7 and 10 on 24th of March, 1979. The respondent Nos. 7 and 10 on 24th of March, 1979. The respondent Nos. 8 and 9, it is alleged by the petitioner in the present application, refused to accept the same on the 30th of March, 1979. The petitioner in the present application has annexed a copy of the letter dated 14th March, 1979 which was addressed to the Secretary, Land and Land Revenue Department, Govt. of West Bengal, the Collector of Birbhum at Suri, the Revenue Officer, Rampurhat, P. O. Rampurhat, the K. G. O. , Halka Camp, Kaluha, the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Rampurhat-II, P. O. Rampurhat, Dist.- Birbhum and to the four private respondents. It is also addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Rampurhat Police Station, Dist.- Birbhum and the Block Level Land Reforms Advisory Committee, Rampurhat-II. The letter was alleged to have been sent by registered post with A/d. As some arguments have been made about the knowledge of the respondents it is also necessary to set out the contents of the letter which is to the following effect: - ? dear Sirs, re : Harun Sk. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. This is to write to you that an application was moved to-day (14. 3. 79) in the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta on behalf of my client, Harun Sk. , son of late Jesarat Sk. , Vill. and P. O. Dunigram, P. S. Rampurhat, Dist: Birbhum, against the impugned barga recording. On hearing His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji was pleased inter alia to issue a Rule Nisi in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) to the petition. His Lordship was further pleased to issue an interim order of injunction in terms of prayer (d) to the petition for a period of 14 days. The terms of prayer (d) runs as follows: - (d) An interim order of Injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants, sub-ordinates and/or employees from proceeding further in giving effect or further effect to the impugned Barga operation proceeding in respect of the petitioner's lands lying and situate within Mouza - Purba Gopalpur, J. L. No. 188 under P. S. Rampurhat, Dist: Birbhum noted in paragraph 2 of the petition in any manner and in any form till the disposal of the Rule. His Lordship has also directed that the petitioner will remove paddy with giving notice to the Junior Land Reforms Officer. His Lordship has also directed that the petitioner will remove paddy with giving notice to the Junior Land Reforms Officer. Liberty was given to the petitioner to pray for the extension of the said interim order with notice to the respondents upon the same application. Pursuant to such direction I am sending a copy of the application in the above matter. Please note further that I shall pray for extension of the said Interim order upon the same application from His Lordship at any convenient date. This is for your information and guidance. ? ( 3 ) THE petitioner has also alleged in the present application that the land in question involved in the original rule namely, C. R. No. 1616 (W) of 1979, the said schedule was in the District of Birbhum, P. S. Rampurhat Mouza - Purba Gopalpur, J. L. No. 188. The Khatian Nos. were 476 and 2044 and Dag Nos. were 1229 and 1467 respectively. It comprises of a total area of 2. 95 acres. It is further his case that on the 15th April, 1978 when I disposed of the matter an order was communicated to all the aforesaid officers and persons by letter dated 15th of April, 1979 by registered post with A/d. It is, further, the case that the said letter was served upon the respondent No. 4 on 11th April, 1979 and respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 10 on 12th of April, 1979 and it was refused by respondent Nos. 8 and 9 on 20th April, 1979. ( 4 ) IT is the case, according to the applicant in the contempt application that the letter dated 4th of April, 1979 was served on the respondent No. 4, namely, Mr. N. C. Sarkar, Revenue Officer, also known as K. G. O. or Halka Officer, Kaluha Camp, P. O. Kaluha in the District of Birbhum as also the respondents No. 6, 7 and 10 who are the private respondents claiming to be Bargadars on the 12th of April, 1979 and it was refused by the other private respondents, namely, respondents Nos. 8 and 9 who are also private respondents claiming to be Bargadars under the petitioner on 20th of April , 1979. It is, further, the categorical allegation that the applicant in this contempt application that in spite of the communication of the said orders respondent Nos. 8 and 9 who are also private respondents claiming to be Bargadars under the petitioner on 20th of April , 1979. It is, further, the categorical allegation that the applicant in this contempt application that in spite of the communication of the said orders respondent Nos. 6 to 10 willfully and in clear disobedience of interim order of injunction forcibly entered into the petitioner's above noted land on 25th of July, 1979 at 7. 30 A. M. along with some unruly persons with lathis and weapons and destroyed the standing paddy crops and mulberry plants grown by the petitioner. The petitioner's father case is that the petitioner lodged a complaint at Rampurhat Police Station specifically stating the facts narrated hereinbefore, a copy of the said complaint has also been annexed to the application for contempt. It is, further, the case of the applicant that taking advantage of what the applicant had described to be exparte Barga recording respondents Nos. 6 to 10 who are the private respondents have been threatening to take away the crops grown by the petitioners upon the said land. In these circumstances, the applicant complaints that due to the contumacious acts, conducts and deeds of the respondent No. 4 as well the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 the applicant had suffered irreparable loss and injury. In those circumstances, the petitioner has asked for committing the respondent Nos. 4 to 10 to prison or to take and inflict other appropriate punishments for the alleged contumacious conduct stated in the petition. On this application being move the respondents No. 4 as well as 6 to 10 on different dates appeared and as I felt that it would be appropriate to examine Mr. N. C. Sarkar in respect of his affidavit which I shall presently note I directed him to appear in person and he appeared in person in Court and I have examined him and he has given certain version in his deposition to which I shall presently refer. But before I do so it would be necessary to refer to annexure ?g? which is the attestation of the alleged Barga recording which is supposed to have been done on 4th of September, 1979 by the respondent No. 4. But before I do so it would be necessary to refer to annexure ?g? which is the attestation of the alleged Barga recording which is supposed to have been done on 4th of September, 1979 by the respondent No. 4. In the affidavit affirmed by the respondent No. 4 on the 12th of March, 1980 and filed in this Court in answer to the contempt application Sri Nemai Chandra Sarkar has stated on solemn affirmation that he is the K. G. O. concerned, and that he is acquainted with the facts of the main rule out of which this contempt application has arisen. He has stated in paragraph 2 of his said affidavit that the writ petition in C. R. No. 8339 (W) of 1979 and the interim order in connection therewith I shall refer to the relevant orders passed in C. R. No. 8339 (W) of 1978 was never ?received? by him. He has, further, denied with reference to paragraphs 8 to 10 the allegations so far as he was concerned. He further states that it is better to quote his own words ?the recording was done in accordance with the direction of the higher authority. ? He admits therefore and it is important to emphasise that the entire records was done in accordance with what he considered to be the direction of the higher authorities. He has in paragraph 4 stated as is stated normally always in all contempt application that I had recently occasion to deal with that he never had any intention ?of flouting the order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. Had he known the order passed by His Lordship Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji he would definitely have complied with the same. He says, further, that he offered an unqualified apology for any complaint done inadvertently and without the knowledge of the deponent. These allegations were specifically denied by one Md. Mainuddia, son of the present applicant, in his affidavit affirmed on 30th of April, 1980. He has further stated in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit that not only the orders passed in C. R. No. 1616 (W) of 1979, being the main petition out of which this contempt petition has arisen were communicated to him but after obtaining certified copies on 2nd of June, 1979 these were produced before the K. G. O. , Halka Camp for his perusal and verification. He has, further alleged that all these were produced before him in the month of June, 1979. The said K. G. O. , Sri Sarkar threw away the said certified copies from his table and made certain remarks which have been quoted in Bengali verbatim which means that from the High Court certain banana leaves have been produced and that he would not look into or obey the same. Whatever his higher authority directs he would do so. It is, further, alleged that he made a remark that these were not the order of the High Court but were typed out by the Advocate and he made the same. According to the deponent of the said affidavit there was serious altercation between the said Nemai Chandra Sarkar and the deponent and as he was advised by the other people he left the place. It is not necessary to deal with the other allegations made in the said affidavit. ( 5 ) IT may however be mentioned that when the matter had come before me on 27th of June, 1980 as would appear from the order sheet dated 27th June, 1980 I directed Sri N. C. Sarkar to appear on 11th of July, 1980 in person with all the relevant records about the impugned recording and also directed him to produce the records to indicate whether he had received a copy of this order and what action he had taken thereupon. It appears that thereafter, Sri N. C. Sarkar affirmed a further affidavit on 8th of July, 1980. The date may be of some consequences in judging the entire conduct and attitude of the respondent No. 4. In the said subsequent affidavit he stated in paragraph 2 that in the affidavit affirmed by him on 12th of March, 1980 in paragraph 3 thereof he had stated that the recording was done in accordance with the direction of the higher authority. He has stated in paragraph 3 that the words ? namely, Revenue Officer, Rampurhat P. S. , District Birbhum in pursuance to his notice dated 28th of November, 1978, on 21st of November, 1978? after the words ? higher authority? were committed to be inserted. He has further stated in paragraph 4 that nothing was done in violation of my order dated 14th of March, 1979 and 5th of April, 1979. after the words ? higher authority? were committed to be inserted. He has further stated in paragraph 4 that nothing was done in violation of my order dated 14th of March, 1979 and 5th of April, 1979. According to him ?alleged to have been passed by His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji in C. R. No. 1616 (W) of 1979?. He has further alleged in paragraph 5 that the said orders were not communicated to him. He has, further, stated in paragraph 6 that on the 28th of November, 1978 notice was issued by the Revenue Officer on the application made by the bargadars prior to that date and barga recording was done on 29th of November, 1978 which according to him ?as admitted by the contempt petition in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the contempt petition dated 28th of October, 1979?. He has further stated that the word 'higher' was inadvertently typed as would be evidenced from the draft affidavit dated 12th of March, 1980 and the deponent was aware that in a State the highest authority cannot and did not flout any order of mine. He has, further, alleged that the applicant in the contempt application did not communicate through his Advocate the order. ( 6 ) AS I mentioned before I had directed on the 27th of June, 1980 that Sri Sarkar should appear on 11th of July, 1980 ?with all the relevant records about the impugned recording and let him also produce records to indicate whether he has received a copy of the order of this on 11th July, 1980 as well on 22nd of August, 1980. I would refer to his evidence in deposition. He was asked by me whether he received the order of this Court on the 21st of March, 1979 to which he admitted that he did. He of course cold not recall the contents of the order as the same was lying with his Advocate. I then asked him whether he had received the order dated 5th of April, 1979 on the 11th of April, 1979. He stated that he did not receive that order. He was shown the registered acknowledgment receipt to which he replied that it was not his signature and he could not recognize the signature and he could not say who on his behalf accepted the document. He stated that he did not receive that order. He was shown the registered acknowledgment receipt to which he replied that it was not his signature and he could not recognize the signature and he could not say who on his behalf accepted the document. Incidentally it may be mentioned that the registered receipt indicated that it was addressed to the Halka Officer and the receipt had the signature of some one and the seal of the office acknowledging the receipt of the letter. He admitted that he was the concerned Halka Officer and he also admitted that the document had his official seal. He recognized his office seal but he stated that he could not recognize the signature appearing thereon. I asked him thereupon whether he was aware who were the officers of the office on that date and I asked him further that if he could not say who received the order then he should bring the records of the office showing the names of the officers who were there in that office at that time and each one of them would have to be examined. When it was asked that if after the order dated 14th of March, 1979 whether he recorded the name of the bargadars he stated that he had documentary proof to show that he had received the name of the bargadars prior to the date of the order of this Court. Then he produced an application which he received from bargadars and he stated that on the 29th of November, 1978 he had recorded the name of the bargadars. He has, further, stated that he received the notice from the higher authority on that date. I asked him whether he received any notice from his higher authorities. He stated that he received one on the 28th of November, 1978 and he produced his directions from the higher authority. ( 7 ) THE same has been tendered and marked as Ext. I asked him whether he received any notice from his higher authorities. He stated that he received one on the 28th of November, 1978 and he produced his directions from the higher authority. ( 7 ) THE same has been tendered and marked as Ext. B. The said order which is dated 18th of November, 1978 merely directs that the officers and his staff named below in that communication where the name of the deponent Sri N. C. Sarkar also appeared to perform their duties in the third phase of Operation Barga for the period from 26th of November,1978 afternoon to 29th of November, 1978 at Murari and Chandpara and the names of the camps on which dates the different camping's should be done it has also been indicated therein. The communication was by charge Officer, Rampurhat, Birbhum, when he was shown a certified copy of the alleged Barga recording he stated that there are four stages and in the first stage green ink is used, at the second stages red ink is used and then other colours which have not been used in the particular case. Now, the red ink is used according to him, at the stage of attestation and he stated that the attestation was done on 4th of September, 1979. He was asked by me whether on that date he had any order from this Court. He stated that before the 4th September, 1979 he got order from this Court. When he was further asked by me in order to clarify his position that in spite of the order of this Court he on the 4th of September, 1979 completed the remaining stage in Bagra recording in red ink. He stated that at that stage there would be a fair copy. Now he was further asked that when he completed the remaining stage, whether he has any notice to the present application. He admitted that no notice was given to the petitioner or the owner but notices were served in J. L. R. O's Office, Gram Panchayat and it was walled up at their office and also some conspicuous places of the village and this notice as also the signature and thumb impressions of some villagers which were taken at the time the notices were walled up at the prominent places of the village. He was asked whether there was any signature of thumb impression of the present applicant or his agent on the notices. He admitted that there was none. He was on that date directed to appear with the documents indicating the names of the officers who were at the time in the office when the order dated 11th of April, 1979 was received and the original of the so called communication dated 28th and 29th of November, 1978 and the names of the officers who gave those directions. ( 8 ) HE appears again and was examined by me in person on 22nd of August, 1980. On that date he produced the names of the officers who were present, namely, attendance register which he encircled on the 11th of April, 1979. He of course could not mention whether all the officers were present on that date. So far as the communication dated 28th and 29th November, 1978 was concerned he brought the communication dated 18th of November, 1978 which is the Annexure 'b' and which I have set out hereinbefore. He explained that the notice was dated 18th of November, 1978 and he had asked to work on the 28th of November, higher authority and he received none other. ( 9 ) IN view of the materials already on record I thought as there was no certainty as to who were the officers on the 11th of April, 1979 to call for all those officers whose names appeared in the attendance register. Now, in this connection it would be relevant to refer again to the order passed by me on the 5th of April, 1979. By that order I had directed that the recording of the bargadar would be done in accordance with the directions made in the order dated 12th of December, 1978 in C. R. No. 8339 (W) of 1978 if not done earlier. In substance the direction in the said rule was that if any recording had been done without giving the personal notice to the recorded owner of the land the same should be ignored and the recording could only be done in accordance with law after serving notice to the recorded owner of the land. I had also directed in order to obviate administrative difficulty that the State Government and the concerned Secretary of the department to communicate to all the officers concerned this aforesaid direction. I had also directed in order to obviate administrative difficulty that the State Government and the concerned Secretary of the department to communicate to all the officers concerned this aforesaid direction. The said order was passed by me on 12th of December, 1978. I am not sure if only this part of my direction that the communication should be done by the Government and the Secretary concerned to all officers concerned had been stayed in an interim application passed by the Division Bench of this Court. I am also not aware whether the Division Bench of this Court had time to dispose of the appeal and nullify or set aside the order or otherwise deal with my order dated 12th of December, 1978. Be that as it may, it appears that at least prior to the 4th of September, 1979 indisputably Sree Sarkar, the respondent herein had knowledge that my order if the impugned recording was in violation of the order or direction given by me in C. R. No. 8339 (W) of 1978 that is to say without serving notice personally or individually to the owner of the land in question should be ignored and fresh recording might be done after giving such notice. In spite of that an in spite of the service of this order and even if I accept that the Government took no steps to communicate this order to the concerned officers in spite of the fact that the said order was fairly well published in newspaper, the deponent Sri N. C. Sarkar who is the Revenue Officer enjoined to perform the duties of recording in accordance with law had neither the knowledge nor the intention to find out about the contents of that order before he proceeded to complete the remaining stage namely, the attestation. Of course the allegation of the petitioner is that certified copies of the orders had been produced before the concerned officer. But apart form this it seems to be improbable to expect that a Revenue Officer enjoined to perform or discharge or enforce the law when told about an order of the Court even if he was not aware of the same before should not care or pause to find out what the order of the Court was before he proceeded to complete that stage. He, according to me, completely ignored that order. He, according to me, completely ignored that order. It is in this context that the allegations made by the petitioner that he showed utter disrespect to the order of the Court when shown the certified copies and uttered that it was like banana leaves from the High Court assumes a version which is likely to be believed. ( 10 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel submitted before this Court in defence of the officer appearing on his behalf that it was the duty of the petitioner, to send a copy of the actual order made in C. R. No. 8339 (W) of 1978. It is abundantly clear, however, that after being apprised of this order prior to the attestation the officer concerned took no step to ignore the recording and proceed afresh as was directed by this Court because of the directions of the ?higher authorities? of the concerned Revenue Officer. Thirdly, it has to be noted that no steps have so far been taken indisputably to find out whether the recording was done in consonance with my direction and if not, no steps have been taken to rectify the same. In this connection, it is significant to note that in the first affidavit Sri N. C. Sarkar stated that recording was done in accordance with the directions of the higher authorities. It was only when I had directed that the officer concerned should appear before me to answer questions that he thought or was advised to affirm the second affidavit in which he stated that recording was done in pursuance of the directions given by the higher authorities on 28th of November, 1978. That is again incorrect because as it appears from the documents produced that the direction of the officer concerned was given on the 18th of November, 1978 and not on 28th of November, 1978. Secondly, the direction does not contain any direction not to comply with the law and law as I have found prior to the purported amendment of the rule done subsequent to my judgment in C. R. No. 8339 (W) of 1978 required personal notice to the owner of the land in question. Secondly, the direction does not contain any direction not to comply with the law and law as I have found prior to the purported amendment of the rule done subsequent to my judgment in C. R. No. 8339 (W) of 1978 required personal notice to the owner of the land in question. It is also strange that even in the second affidavit affirmed on 8th July, 1980 when he had already appeared in Court the deponent should say about the order of this Court dated 14th March, 1979 and 5th of April, 1979?, alleged to have been passed by His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji in C. R. No. 1616 (W) of 1979. ? It is, therefore, surprising that after the deponent had appeared in this Court and his personal appearance was dispensed with and he was represented by the learned Advocates of the Government he did not care to be aware of the orders passed by this Court on 14th of March, 1979 and 5th of April, 1979 which were termed by him ?alleged? to have been passed by me. This also in my opinion shows an utter disrespect of law. It is true as learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner tendered unqualified apology. If Sri N. C. Sarkar had not disobeyed the order of this Court as is his case then no question of rendering apology arise. If, however, one was in doubt one may in certain cases take his stand and tender apology. But in this case when attestation was done Sri N. C. Sarkar had full knowledge. In spite of that he proceeded to complete the attestation. In spite of that he took no steps to find out if the recording was done in violation of my order in C. R. No. 8339 (W) of 1978 dated 12th of December, 1978 and if so to rectify the same. He did not even find out whether the orders were actually passed by this Court which are still considered by him to be ?alleged? orders. The violation of the order of the Court, is, therefore established. Intention is a matter which has to be deducted from the entire conduct. He did not even find out whether the orders were actually passed by this Court which are still considered by him to be ?alleged? orders. The violation of the order of the Court, is, therefore established. Intention is a matter which has to be deducted from the entire conduct. Having regard to the complete inaction on the part of the officer concerned to find out about the order of this Court and to take steps to rectify the order of this Court, having regard to the attitude taken in the first affidavit which was sought to be rectified in the second affidavit after direction had been given for personal examination and having regard to his still considering the orders of this Court to be the ?alleged? orders, in my opinion, no other conclusion is possible that the order of this Court was violated deliberately with knowledge and intention. Had he been a poor illeterate bargadar then different considerations might have applied. But here I am concerned with a Revenue Officer charged with enforcement of revenue and land reforms laws in one of the most important socio-economic legislation in this country. For an officer of this type such conduct cannot be tolerated if semblance of rule of law has to be maintained. If Sree Sarkar had sought guidance from the State Government he would have received proper advice, because the State Government would surely have advised him to seek directions from the Court after he had knowledge of the order but he did not care. ( 11 ) THE Supreme Court has recently reminded us in the decision in the case of (1) Advocate General, State of Bihar v. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries, AIR 1980 S. C. page 946 that it is necessary to punish as a contempt a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. If a Revenue Officer is permitted to ignore the order of this Court and proceed with the attestation which is the remaining stage according to him, of recording of bargadar after he had admittedly notice of the order of the Court and if he is permitted to sit inactively to the Court's order directing rectification of the recording done in violation of my direction contained in the order dated 12. 12. 78 in C. R. No. 8339 (W) of 1978 and when he made no attempt to find out if the recording was in compliance with law, then such violation affects the public in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court has also reminded us that the public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice because unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The Court has therefore a duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and so it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of Court not in order to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury but to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. It is the mode of vindicating the majesty of law, in its active manifestation against obstruction and outrage. I have to remember as quoted in (2) Jennison v. Beker, (1972) I All E. R. 997 at 1006 ?the law should not be seen to sit by simply, while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection loose hope?. If a Revenue Officer is permitted and allowed to act in this fashion by only uttering that he has highest respect for the order of the Court while his conduct as I have indicated before irresistibly shows otherwise, then no administration of justice is possible. The action of the officer concerned may be the result of an attitude bred out of an atmosphere. He perhaps is not solely or mainly responsible for the atmosphere. But so is the case of many criminals. ( 12 ) I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the deponent Sri N. C. Sarkar is guilty of the violation of the order of this Court. He perhaps is not solely or mainly responsible for the atmosphere. But so is the case of many criminals. ( 12 ) I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the deponent Sri N. C. Sarkar is guilty of the violation of the order of this Court. The question of punishment has to be decided. Retribution, says Tolstoy in his famous novel Anna Kernnina, is the punishment for the wrong done. I have noticed neither in the affidavit nor in the demeanour of Sri N. C. Sarkar in the witness box any sense of contrition through his action. The Supreme Court as enjoined me to be firm though not foul, strong but not callous. I, therefore, hold (1) Sri N. C. Sarkar guilty of the violation of the order of this Court as indicated before and I direct that he should personally pay a fine of Rs. 200/- within a period of two months from this date, the fine should be paid to the Registrar, Appellate Side of this Court. He should, further, on 24th of April, 1981 appear in Court personally to inform the Court whether he has paid the fine or not, when the matter would appear ?to be mentioned?. In default Sri N. C. Sarkar should undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. I further direct that the Registrar, Original Side should take steps to arrange that he might be taken to custody on that date in case of default. (2) I further direct the Settlement Officer, Birbhum to cause an appropriate officer an enquiry as to whether the order of this Court regarding the recording of the bargadars in case of the land in dispute in this case has been duly complied with and if not to comply with the same. I, further, direct that he should take steps to cancel the attestation alleged to have been done by Sri N. C. Sarkar on 4th of September, 1979 in this matter. I direct further that the Settlement Officer, Birbhum should file an affidavit in this Court within a period of three months from this date stating what steps have been taken so far. Let learned Advocates for the State communicate this order to the Settlement Officer concerned. Sree Sarkar will also pay to the applicant of the present petition the costs of this contempt proceeding which I assess at 10 Gms. Let learned Advocates for the State communicate this order to the Settlement Officer concerned. Sree Sarkar will also pay to the applicant of the present petition the costs of this contempt proceeding which I assess at 10 Gms. Let this order be placed before the Registrar, Appellate Side as well as Original Side. The Rule Nisi is made absolute to the extent indicated above.