Judgment S.Shamsul Hasan, J. 1. This proceeding arises out of the violation of certain orders passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3052 of 1983. There are eight opposite parties but contempt proceedings had been initiated against opposite parties Nos. 2 to 8 only under the Contempt of Courts Act. The facts leading to the initiation of this proceeding are as follows: 2. The aforesaid writ application was filed on 19th July, 1983 and was placed for admission on 21st July, 1983, when after admitting the application the following interim order was passed. "During the pendency of this application, respondent No. 2 is directed to pay all arrears of salary by 21st of August, 1983, and the current salary forthwith." The mall concerned at that stage for complying with the aforesaid interim order was respondent No; 2, the District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran at Bettiah, of the writ application. He is opposite party No. 2 in this proceeding. As stated above, the interim order was required to be complied with by the 21st August, 1983. Without complying with that order on 20th August, 1983, i.e., one day before the last date for complying with the interim order, a petition was filed for modifying the same. This petition appears to have been filed on behalf of the respondents of the writ petition. In the petition it was prayed as follows: "It is therefore prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to modify the order for payment of salaries to the petitioner passed on 23rd June, 1983 till the final disposed of this writ petition or pass any such order, orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper." It may be stated here f hat it was wrongly stated as 23rd July, 1983 in the prayer portion of the petition in place of 21st July, 1983. Though the modification sought for was not specifically stated in the petition, from the petition under submission the prayer appeared to be that the order of payment should be withdrawn. This appears from the order passed on this petition on 3rd September, 1983 in the writ application, when the petition was placed for orders. It will be useful to set out the order dated 3rd September, 1983 in extenso. This appears from the order passed on this petition on 3rd September, 1983 in the writ application, when the petition was placed for orders. It will be useful to set out the order dated 3rd September, 1983 in extenso. "An application has been filed to modify the order dated 21st July, 1983 whereby respondent No. 2 was directed to pay all arrears of salary by 21st of August, 1983, and the current salary forthwith. In this application by the State it is stated that the appointments of the petitioners were entirely illegal and collusively made by certain persons, which fact is clear from the enquiry report submitted by an officer belonging to the Indian Administrative Service, and a Deputy Collector and some of the officers of the department concerned have been suspended and F.I.R. has been lodged against all the petitioners. But the short-fall, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were pot noticed about the enquiry. It is well settled that a person howsoever illegally appointed cannot face termination- without being given an opportunity to show cause against such termination. Learned Counsel for the petitioner" stated that no termination letter has been issued. The only thing is that the salary of the petitioners arrears and current-have been stopped which should be paid to the petitioners. As usual the department has chosen to violate the order passed by this Court on 21st July, 1983, by filing an application for modification of the said order, which is a sad reflection on the action of the executive and the officers in the concerned district. It is further stated by learned Counsel for the State that in case it is ultimately found that the teachers, i.e., the petitioners, were wrongly appointed, a large number of suits will have to be filed to recover the salaries paid to them and in this matter heavy burden will fall on the exchequer. As far as this Court is concerned, we follow the law and not repercussion of the action. The officers have to blame themselves for not following the law. If the officers of the State themselves act in a manner unwarranted in law, they would be dealt with suitably. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission. It has been further submitted that the present order virtually amounts to allowing the application. The officers have to blame themselves for not following the law. If the officers of the State themselves act in a manner unwarranted in law, they would be dealt with suitably. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission. It has been further submitted that the present order virtually amounts to allowing the application. When the submissions are made view of the Court has to be expressed and that has been done, whatever may be the fate of the case itself. In the circumstances, the officers concerned are directed to comply with the earlier order immediately within fifteen days from today in the matter of the payment of the arrears and current months salary to the petitioners, failing which action will be taken under the Contempt of Courts Act." 3. Putting it in nutshell the submission was that since the petitioners so called appointments themselves, were obtained by fraud, they were not entitled to any payment whatsoever. In any event further extension of fifteen days was granted. 4. It appears that another petition was also filed on 15th September, 1983 which was put up for orders on 16th September. 1983 praying for further extension jn the following terms:" It is therefore prayed that your Lordship may allow 3 months time to make the payments to the petitioners and pass any such order or orders which your Lordship may deem fit or proper........... This prayer was refused by order dated 16th September, 1983 as follows: A petition is filed for extending the date for paying the salary of the writ petitioners. Sufficient time has already been granted. The petition (flag p) is rejected. 5. In spite of the aforesaid order dated 16th September, 1983 since no payment was made to the petitioners an application for initiation of a proceeding under the Contempt of courts Act was filed and the present proceeding was initiated. 6. It appears that a Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the order dated 3rd September. 1983 in which a Bench of this Court, without admitting the appeal, had stated the operation of the order impugned in that appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal, it was stated at the bar, stood dismissed for default and an application for restoration of the same is still pending. As things stand, the stay order passed in the appeal became inoperative as a result of the dismissal of the appeal. 7. The Letters Patent Appeal, it was stated at the bar, stood dismissed for default and an application for restoration of the same is still pending. As things stand, the stay order passed in the appeal became inoperative as a result of the dismissal of the appeal. 7. The present proceeding has been initiated against respondent No. 2 of the writ application and others responsible for Dot making payment to the petitioners. Opposite Party No. 2, Ali Jung Khan, in the District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran at Bettiah; Opposite Party No. 3. Rama Kant Kumar, was the Treasury Officer, Collectorate, West Champaran at Bettiah at the relevant time; Opposite Party No. 4, Rameshwar Datt Pandey is the Deputy Inspector of Schools, West Champaran at Bettiah; Opposite Party No. 5, Sheo Shekhar Pandey, is the Block Education Extension Officer, Gaunaha-1, District West Champaran ; Opposite Party No. 6, Surendra Pandey, Opposite Party No. 7. Lal Bahadur Prasad and Opposite Party No. 8 Shahni Khan are the Blocks, Education Extension Officers of Gaunaha-II, Chanpatia and Jogapatti Blocks, District West Champaran, respectively. Cause has been shown separately by opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 3 (Treasury Officer), and jointly by opposite party No. 3 to 8. 8. The main theme of opposite party No. 2 is that he had made every effort to make payment but the bills forwarded had been rejected by opposite party No. 3, the Treasury Officer, every time they were sent, and the responsibility was also being shifted and denied by the opposite parties other than opposite party No 3. The stand of the Treasury Officer (opposite party No. 3) is that the tills were rejected because they were never sent in accordance with the requirements of the rules in regard to the bills for payment of salaries to teachers. 9. I have now, therefore to examine whether the opposite party contemners have acted in a bona fide manner and have really made and effort to comply with the order of the Court at all stages or have deliberately or willfully violated the order on pretexts that are entirely untenable and unwarranted. 9. I have now, therefore to examine whether the opposite party contemners have acted in a bona fide manner and have really made and effort to comply with the order of the Court at all stages or have deliberately or willfully violated the order on pretexts that are entirely untenable and unwarranted. It will be relevant to state at this stage that statements were made at the bar by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, West Champaran, on receipt of the order of this Court had directed payment of the salaries to the petitioners. The statement was not denied by learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party-contemners. 10. A petition was filed on 20th August, 1983 by the State without indicating on whose behalf it was filed, but I take it to be on behalf of thy respondent No. 2 of the writ petition since the affidavit has been sworn by a clerk of his office, stating, in effect, that the interim order could not be complied with for the reasons stated therein in paras 4 and 5 as follows; "That the statement made in para 2 in petition is totally false. It is not a fact that the petitioners have been working in any of the schools indicated by them in the District of the West Champaran. In fact they were never appointed as assistant teachers by a competent authority empowered under the law to make such appointment. It will not be irrelevant to mention here that these petitioners obtained forged appointment letters bearing forged signatures of the then District Superintendent of Education, Sri Shudhakar Pathak of Bettiah. In fact no such appointment letters were ever issued by the Office of the District Superintendent of Education. That after forging fake appointment letters the petitioners joined as assistant teachers in various schools of the District and started functioning but since these appointments were on forged documents, their joining was no joining in the eye of law and conferred not right to salary or any other right. That after forging fake appointment letters the petitioners joined as assistant teachers in various schools of the District and started functioning but since these appointments were on forged documents, their joining was no joining in the eye of law and conferred not right to salary or any other right. It is admitted in this petition that the petitioners had in fact joined the various schools to which they were assigned, but the attitude of the State was that the appointments were obtained fraudulently and dishonestly and in the eye of law the petitioners were not duly appointee and, therefore, they could not be paid the salary as directed by this Court. The situation, now tried to be explained by stating that criminal cases have been filed against the officials concerned, is that the salaries had already been paid to some of the petitioners and steps had also been taken to pay the salaries to others for the period 1980 to 1981. It will be relevant to quote paragraph 7 of the petition filed on 20th August, 1983 in writ petition. That the petitioners are not at all Government servants in the eye of law hence no payment can be made to them. This exposes the attitude of respondent No. 2 (opposite party No. 2 in this cases and indicates in and unambiguous term clear and willful attempt to disobey the orders of this Court. Another circumstance arises from the failure to state the person specifically on whose behalf the petition was filed on 28th August, 1983. This indicates an attempt to escape responsibility for non-compliance of the order of this Court. 11. After hearing the parties at length a considered order was passed by this Court on 3rd September, 1983 and the period for complying with the order was extended by another fifteen days. The said order dated 3rd September, 1983 has already been set out above in extenso. 12. Another petition was filed on 15th September, 1982 and was placed before this Court on 16th September, 1983 for orders and heard. The said order dated 3rd September, 1983 has already been set out above in extenso. 12. Another petition was filed on 15th September, 1982 and was placed before this Court on 16th September, 1983 for orders and heard. After having adopted an attitude of defiance in the first petition mentioned above and stating that the payment was not possible since the petitioners could not be treated to be duly appointed, in this petition three months time was sought for making the payment and requiring the petitioners to produce their letters of appointment, joining letters, and the amounts of arrears claimed by them. This, in my view, is another method of willfully trying to delay the compliance of the order of the earlier payment must have been in the office of the concerned authorities. The explanation that those documents are with the suspended officials is only to be stated to be rejected. Secondly the appointment letters, as is common ground of both the parties in C.W.C.J. No. 3052/83, had already been submitted to the authorities concerned on their demand by the writ petitioners and were thus in their possession. This is also broke out by the statement made in the petition dated 20th August, 1983 that the appointment letters purposing to have been signed by Shri Pathak were forgeries. Such a statement could only made after examining the appointment letters themselves, and, Above all, the grounds now taken for seeking extension of the date of payment were not state in the earlier petition filed on 20th August, 1983 at which stage the stand was that the ;payment in law could not be made. It will be relevant at this stage to state that in this petition filed on 15th September, 1983, also it is not state as to n whose behalf it had been filed and this has been deliberately and mala filed kept nebulous. It will also be relevant to state as stated above, that a Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the order dated 3rd September, 1983, which was not admitted but stay of the order was granted. The effect of the stay order, in my view, is intriguing. As I read the situation, time granted by me for complying with the order within fifteen days was stayed and the interim order dated 21st July, 1983 was not stayed. This, however, is subject to correction. The effect of the stay order, in my view, is intriguing. As I read the situation, time granted by me for complying with the order within fifteen days was stayed and the interim order dated 21st July, 1983 was not stayed. This, however, is subject to correction. The actual order in the L.P.A. has not been produced before me by either party but I am stating this on the basis of the submissions made in Court. It has also not been stated that any grievance was made in the Letters Patent Appeal regarding the last order dated 16th September, 1983. 13. A petition was then filed by the writ petitioners for taking steps under the Contempt of Court Act. 1971, and, accordingly, accepting the prayer of the writ petitioners notice was issued and the present proceeding was initiated. Apart from respondent No. 2 of the writ petition others have also been noticed because of their alleged complicity in obstructing willfully the observance of the orders of this Court. The allegations as they stand now, in substance, are that in spite of the orders of this Court salaries- past and current have not been paid by respondent No. 2 of the writ petition, (opposite party No. 2 in this petition) and other opposite parties mentioned in that petition. No specific allegation has been made against any particular opposite party except, that they all connived in willfully disobeying the orders of this Court by not complying with them. Cause shown by the various opposite party contemners, however, have made interesting revelation, gist of which is given below. 14. The District Superintendent of Education, Opposite Party No. 2 contemner, in his show cause has stated that in compliance with the orders of this Court he issued an instruction to the concerned Block Education Extension Officers to come with the bills of the teachers concerned to his office, and as a precautionary measure, he also directed the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bettiah, (opposite party No. 4-contemner) to submit bills in absence of any Block Education Extension Officer found on leave or was absence due to any reason. It is stated that opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 expressed their difficulty in preparing the bills and they were accordingly directed to take the help from the Head Clerk of Opposite party No. 2. It is stated that opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 expressed their difficulty in preparing the bills and they were accordingly directed to take the help from the Head Clerk of Opposite party No. 2. It is also stated that the Headmasters too indicated their inability to submit the statements and gave in writing that none of the teachers ever joined or worked in the respective schools. There after opposite party No. 5 to 8 contemners were directed to come to the office of opposite party No. 2 with the Headmasters but they did not turn up and, therefore, the bills could not be prepared. At last, bills were prepared in the office of opposite party No. 2 who signed them on 14th September, 1983 and sent to treasury with a request to pass the same, specially in view of the order of this Court, but, they were sent back with five objections on 24th September" 1983, which were removed and again sent to treasury on 27th September, 1983. As stated in the show cause by opposite party No. 2, the bills were again returned with some more objections on 28th September, 1983 and after rectifying the defects they were sent hack to the treasury on 29th September, 1983. It has been stated that in view of the above facts he did not himself feel guilty for disobedience of the orders passed by this Court, but, however, if in the eye of law, he has committed any disobedience, then he tenders unqualified apology which may be accepted. 15. In the show cause filed by the Treasury Officer, (opposite party Contemner) it is stated that as a Treasury Officer it was incumbent upon him to make payment against the bills strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Treasury Code, Volume 1, failing which he was answerable. Though he has not quoted the objections raised by him on the bills concerned, from the gists given by him the objections were: (i) Necessary certificates for payments were not given by the drawing officer. (ii) The bills were directly received and presented by the District Superintendent of Education (opposite party No. 2, which was against the rules. They should have been received by the Block Education Extension Officers from the teachers of the schools and were to be sent by them to the District Superintendent of Education, after being counter-signed. (ii) The bills were directly received and presented by the District Superintendent of Education (opposite party No. 2, which was against the rules. They should have been received by the Block Education Extension Officers from the teachers of the schools and were to be sent by them to the District Superintendent of Education, after being counter-signed. (iii) The bills contained the certificates of the Bill Clerk and the ,Accountant of opposite party No. 2 to the effect that they were not responsible for any mistakes in the bills, which was against the rules, as they should have contained the certificates of opposite party No. 2, who was the drawing officer. With the aforesaid objections the bills were returned, but, as stated in the petition of cause, they were again sent back, without removing the defects, with a request to pass the bills as the were on this the Treasury Officer asked the opposite party No. 2 to take action in accordance with rule 18 of the Bihar Treasury Code, which is quoted below: "A treasury officer shall not honour a claim which he considers to be disputable. He shall require the claimant to refer it to the Accountant General". It is also stated in the petition of cause that opposite party No. 3 -contemner was never shown the order of this Court and that this Court would have never directed to pass the bill and make payment in the absence of the required certificates. He has also tendered unconditional apology. 16. Opposite party No. 4 to 8 (the Deputy Inspector of Schools and the concerned Block Education Extension Officers) have shown cause jointly in which the specific stand of the Deputy Inspector of Schools (O.P. No. 4) is that he was, not in charge of the primary schools, of which the petitioners were stated to be the teachers, and, therefore he was not linked with the affairs of the petitioners. He has further stated that he was wrongly dragged into the affairs. Still on instructions from opposite party No. 2 to submit bills of primary teachers concerned, in case opposite party Nos. 5 to 8 were either absent or were on leave, he directed those opposite parties to prepare the bills as none of them was absent or were on leave. Still on instructions from opposite party No. 2 to submit bills of primary teachers concerned, in case opposite party Nos. 5 to 8 were either absent or were on leave, he directed those opposite parties to prepare the bills as none of them was absent or were on leave. The specific case of opposite party No. 5 and 6 was that they were not permanent officers and were doing only routine duty. The common stand of opposite party Nos. 5 to 8 was that opposite party No. 2 had directed them to ascertain that the petitioners were not working in any school because they were never appointed as teachers and if at all they held any appointment letters, they should be treated as fake ones. They visited the concerned schools and obtained reports from the Headmasters and then came to know that none of the petitioners even worked in any schools, and sent the reports seeking guidance and showing inability to prepare bills in absence of the absentee statements. They have also mentioned the procedure for payment of salary to primary teachers. Thereafter, they have given para wise replies to the statement made in the petition filed by the petitioners denying the allegations and tendering unqualified apology 17. It appears now that the blame is being shifted from one person to other with the Treasury Officer (opposite party No. 3) being made the ultimate escape goat. The net result of this exercise in prevarication is the continued disobedience of the orders of this Court by the opposite parties other than opposite party No. 3 to whose case I shall advert later. 18. An opportunity was afforded to lead evidence to substantiate the statements made in the pleadings by the parties. The parties, however, did not avail of this opportunity and agreed to proceed on the pleading themselves. It is significant to note that all the opposite parties-contemners, except opposite party No. 3 the Treasury Officer, were represented by one counsel, that is, Standing Counsel I, Mr. Jagannath Jha and no attempt was made to controvert in reply the assertions of two groups i.e. opposite party No. 2 on the one side and opposite party Nos. 4 to 8 on the other. Jagannath Jha and no attempt was made to controvert in reply the assertions of two groups i.e. opposite party No. 2 on the one side and opposite party Nos. 4 to 8 on the other. The shifting of responsibility by one pal by and its disclaimer others clearly indicates that even at the stage when the contemners-opposite party Nos., 2 and 4 to 8 were showing came they were willfully making attempt to obstruct the obedience of the orders of this Court, obviously for no laudable motive, except the blatant disregard to the orders of this Court. From the petition of cause filed by the opposite party Nos. 4 to 8 it appears that instead of making efforts to make payment they were still trying to gather evidence in regard to the nature of the so called appointment of the writ petitioners. This indicates that no serious steps were really being taken to obey the order of this Court by making the payment as was done in the past to some of the writ petitioners. It may be recalled that-admittedly the Collector of the District had, on receipt of the order of this Court, directed the payments to be made, but, in spite of that, the opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 the contemners continued to adopt an attitude of recalcitrance and continued to defy the orders of this Court. Various petitions filed in the writ application and the causes shown by these opposite parties furnish sufficient ground for coming to the conclusion that I have drawn above It is admitted on both sides that some of the writ petitioners bad been paid their salaries and the bills of others had already been drawn for such payment. If opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 apart from opposite, party No. 3 had any intention of obeying the orders of this Court for which sufficient time was also allowed to them, they would, not have prevaricated in the manner they had done and filed petitions and petitions of cause with conflicting and contradictory fact and evasive explanations. 19. The cause shown by opposite party No. 3-contemner (Treasury Officer) makes interesting reading, the gist of which has already been set out above. No Treasury Officer could pass bills that were presented with defects and in violation of the rules. 19. The cause shown by opposite party No. 3-contemner (Treasury Officer) makes interesting reading, the gist of which has already been set out above. No Treasury Officer could pass bills that were presented with defects and in violation of the rules. It is surprising that although the defects were pointed out by the Treasury Officer, they were never removed by the other opposite parties contemners and they continued to submit defective bills merely to once again evade payment in disobedience of the orders of this court. Again I may reiterate that if once bills had been passed on previous occasion there was no reason why the bills should not been sent without defect after the orders of this Court. The explanation that the Headmasters could not forward the bills at one place and again saying that the bills were sent to the Treasury Officer highlights the attitude of the contemners by the apparent contradictions and shows how the mind of the contemners was functioning. The Treasury Officer acted entirely within the pale of duty in not passing the bills as they were defective and it is the, other contemners who were entirely to blame for the disobedience of the orders of this Court. 20. Finally even the apologies submitted, particularly that of opposite party No 2, are couched in a language that, in my view, does not purge the contempt specially when, the disobedience still continues. The conduct of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 clearly indicates that their, whole idea was not to make the payment due to prejudging the issue of the appointment of the writ petitioners. Their conduct clearly shows that they were obviously under the impression that they will get away by tendering apology and succeeding in the writ application and continued with their disobedience for getting that the contempt case of willfully disobedience of the orders of this Court would still be subjected to scrutiny and trial and award of suitable punishment, if found guilty. I may, however, state that I have allowed the writ application, i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 3051 of 1983, and have issued writs of mandamus on the respondents of that application. 21. I may, however, state that I have allowed the writ application, i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 3051 of 1983, and have issued writs of mandamus on the respondents of that application. 21. The main argument in the whole contempt matter was that firstly no payment could really be made to the petitioners because in the eye of law they cannot be treated as duly appointed teachers and secondly after shifting from that stand it was argued that efforts were made to make the payment but that could not be done for the reasons stated in the respective petitions of cause. It was not argued, as had been done in the earlier petition filed in the writ petition itself, that the opposite parties did not have adequate time at their disposal to comply with the order. It may be stated in regard to sufficiency of time at the disposal of the opposite party contemners that if they had taken steps immediately after passing of the interim order to make payments in view of the fact that payments had already been made to some of the petitioners, there was no doubt that payments would have been made in lime. It was also open to the respondents in the writ application to have acted diligently and expeditiously to comply with the order of this Court and after substantial compliance could have sought further extension of time for finalization of the steps leading to the compliance to, the orders of this Court. but, instead, of doing that time was allowed to escape by filing petitions which smacks of defiance of the order of this Court and, as I have said above in view of the earlier payments to some of the petitioners the time at the disposal of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 to make the payment was sufficient. 22. I, therefore, hold that opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court and are still continuing to do so deserving punishment. 2 and 4 to 8 to make the payment was sufficient. 22. I, therefore, hold that opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court and are still continuing to do so deserving punishment. I would have taken lenient view of the matters had the opposite parties demonstrated a genuine desire to obey the orders of this Court by exercise of appropriate diligence and observance of the right steps but, to say the least, defiant attitude of the opposite parties is writ large from the materials placed by me above and if such cases are allowed to go unpunished, I feel, the authorities will never take orders of this Court seriously and will a always feel that they can get away with any thing by invoking tender mercy of this Court by showering a few words of apology. The continued defiance and disobedience deserves serious notice and clearly indicates willfully and deliberate nature of the disobedience of the order of this Court, and, therefore, I am not inclined to show any leniency to opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 to 8. As far as opposite party No. 3, the Treasury Officer, is concerned, as I have stated above, he cannot be attributed with any act that could be described as willfully disobedience of the order of this Court. He could not be expected to pass bill that did not comply with the requirements of the appropriate Law and rules. I, therefore, convict opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 and discharge the rule against opposite party No, 3. 23. In the circumstances of the case and willfully manner in which opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 have acted I am not inclined to accept their apology. I sentence opposite party No. 2 contemner. Ali Jang Khan the District Superintendent of Education to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1300.00 , in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. I also sentence Rameshwar Dutt Pandey opposite party No. 4) Sheo Shekhar Pandey (opposite party No. 5), Surendra Pandey (opposite party No. 6). Lal Bahadur Prasad (opposite party No. 7) and Shelehin Khan (opposite party No. 8) to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. I also sentence Rameshwar Dutt Pandey opposite party No. 4) Sheo Shekhar Pandey (opposite party No. 5), Surendra Pandey (opposite party No. 6). Lal Bahadur Prasad (opposite party No. 7) and Shelehin Khan (opposite party No. 8) to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days each. 24. As stated above cause shown by opposite party No. 3 contemner is accepted and the rule issued against him is discharged. No contempt proceeding was started against the opposite party No I-State.