Judgment Jeevan Reddy, J.: 1. By its order dated 22.11.1983 in W.P.No.9137/1982, a Bench of this court quashed the order refusing permission to the petitioner to establish a College of Education, and directed the appropriate authority to consider the application made by the petitioner-society for grant of such permission, in accordance with section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. It was directed that the petitioner's application shall be disposed of within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. A copy of the judgment was received by the Government, which is the authority under section 20 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application, on 25.2.85. No orders were passed within one month therefrom. The petitioner says that, since no orders were passed within the period prescribed, it sent repeated reminders but, still, no orders were passed, whereupon the petitioner came forward with this Contempt Case on 3.12.1984. The contempt case was admitted on 22.12.1984 and notice was directed to the sole respondent, viz. “Sri V.P.Rama Rao, Secretary to Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Education Department, aged about 45 years, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.” Thereafter, on 15.1.1985, the Govt. passed an order, again rejecting the petitioner's application for permission under section 20. The petitioner immediately filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.670/85, challenging the said order. The writ petition was directed to be heard along with this Contempt Case and was, accordingly, heard. We have allowed the writ petition by our judgment and order dated 26.4.1985; but in view of an additional counter-affidavit filed on the last date of hearing, we postponed the judgment in the Contempt Case. 2. The sole respondent, Sri V.P.Rama Rao, has filed a counter-affidavit denying that he is guilty of any wilful or deliberate violation of this court's order, and stating further that, after receiving this court's order on 25.2.1984, a letter was addressed by him to the Registrar of Andhra University on 22.3.1984 for the report of the University and its recommendation in the matter. The report of the University was received on 1.5.1984; a Special Secretary to the Education Department appointed by the Government has been looking after the work connected with B.Ed. Colleges under the Distribution of work order dated 19.5.1984 and that, the concerned Special Secretary independently circulates the files under the Secretariat Rules. The report of the University was received on 1.5.1984; a Special Secretary to the Education Department appointed by the Government has been looking after the work connected with B.Ed. Colleges under the Distribution of work order dated 19.5.1984 and that, the concerned Special Secretary independently circulates the files under the Secretariat Rules. He also stated that he was not in the Education Department from 1.4.1984 till the middle of October, 1984. He stated further that, as soon as the necessary verification was over, the Government passed its orders on 15.1.1985, contained in GORT.No.101 He stated that he has the highest regard and respect for the orders of the court and implements the same promptly without any avoidable delay. 3. An additional counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent on 26.4.1985, wherein it is stated, that, after the feasibility report from the University was received, the file was processed and circulated to the concerned Hon’ble Minister, He reiterated his submission that these matters are being dealt with by the Special Secretary to the Government, who circulates all the files to the Hon’ble Minister independently. Thus, the respondents disclaims any responsibility for the delay. Finally, in paragraph 4, the respondent stated thus: “Government deeply regret the delay in complying with the orders of this Hon’ble Court. I submit that the orders of this Hon’ble Court have not been flouted as alleged. In fact there has been no wilful delay in complying with the orders of this Hon’ble Court. The delay has been caused due to various procedural and administrative reasons. Government have taken every step possible to comply with the orders of this Hon’ble Court as expeditiously as practicable. But unfortunately for the aforementioned reasons, the Government could not pass the orders within the time fixed by this Hon’ble Court for which I sincerely feel sorry and deeply regret….” 4. The direction in W.P.No.9137/82 was issued to the Government, which is the appropriate authority under section 20 of the A.P.Education Act, 1982. But, unfortunately, the present Contempt Case has been filed not against the Government as such, but against a specified individual, namely, Sri V.P.Rama Rao, Prl. Secretary to the Education Department. Charged with the wilful disobedience of this court's order, Sri V.P.Rama Rao has tried to explain away his role. But, unfortunately, the present Contempt Case has been filed not against the Government as such, but against a specified individual, namely, Sri V.P.Rama Rao, Prl. Secretary to the Education Department. Charged with the wilful disobedience of this court's order, Sri V.P.Rama Rao has tried to explain away his role. He stated that, according to the Distribution of Work order, he was not at all concerned with this matter from March 1984 onwards; it is the Special Secretary to the Education Department who had been dealing with this matter, and the Minister concerned. Neither the Special Secretary is before this Court, nor the Hon’ble Minister. Indeed, we are unable to appreciate why a specified individual has been made the sole respondent in this Contempt Case. Sri Koka Raghava Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, tried to explain that this is the practice insisted upon by the High Court office that the petitioner should name the particular individual, who is said to be guilty of contempt. However, no rule or any decision has been brought to our notice saying so. We must say that we are unable to understand this practice, if there is any such practice. When a direction is given to the Government, it is the Government which is answerable for the delay in its implementation. “Government” does not mean either the Secretary or the Minister, or any other officer, by himself. Government is an organisation, and it has to answer the charge of wilful disobedience as an organisation. Just as it defends a writ petition, so should it explain the delay in implementation of the court's directions and orders. By proceeding against a particular officer in the Government, in such a case, the petitioner runs the risk which is demonstrated by this very case. The person proceeded against disowns responsibility; then again, another contempt case has to be filed, or the other person pointed out will have to be impleaded. Suppose, in this case the Special Secretary is impleaded, he may well say that the delay was on the part of the Minister, and so on and so forth. It is, therefore, better that, in such cases, the Government as such is impleaded as the respondent. In other words, the party to whom the order or direction had been issued, must again be impleaded as such in the Contempt Case. It is, therefore, better that, in such cases, the Government as such is impleaded as the respondent. In other words, the party to whom the order or direction had been issued, must again be impleaded as such in the Contempt Case. If the Government is found guilty of wilful disobedience, it will have to be punished; a fine can be levied upon the Government, or its property can be attached, as happened in Stateof Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari Stateof Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari (1961)1 S.C.R. 728 : A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 221 exemplary costs can also be awarded as was done in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in (1984)4 S.C.C. 20: A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1134. In this case, an injunction was issued against the Government, and the Government was sought to be punished for violation of the injunction. A question was raised whether the Government as such can be proceeded against for contempt particularly for criminal contempt, because, it was contended, it is in the nature of a criminal proceeding to be directed against a specified person. This contention was rejected and it was held that, though the State Government not being a natural person cannot be ordered to be detained in civil person, still the injunction being directed against the State, the State is responsible for its violation, if any, and can be proceeded against. In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's order of attachment of property of the Government for disobedience to the order of injunction. Thus, this decision is clear authority for the proposition that the Government as such can be proceeded against for contempt, where the direction] of order is issued against the Government as such. It is not necessary in such a case to implead a particular officer of the Government eo nominee. Of course, where the petitioner alleges, or can show that a particular officer of the Government has deliberately disobeyed the order of the Court, it will be open to him to implead such officer; but, he cannot be compelled to name an officer of the Government as contemner, where the alleged contempt is committed by the Government as such. Of course, where the petitioner alleges, or can show that a particular officer of the Government has deliberately disobeyed the order of the Court, it will be open to him to implead such officer; but, he cannot be compelled to name an officer of the Government as contemner, where the alleged contempt is committed by the Government as such. It may also happen that, when examining a contempt charge against Government, the court may find a particular official or person solely or mainly responsible, in which case the court may impose the appropriate punishment against such official or person after giving an opportunity to such person to answer the charge. In such a case, the Government would also be morally bound to take appropriate action against such official or person. 5. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Ramji Lal State of Punjab v. Ramji Lal (1971)2 S.C.J. 348: A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1228, which appears to furnish an apt analogy. The following passage from the judgment brings out the decision: “Counsel for the State of Punjab contended that the plea that the action of State was not bona fide cannot be said to be established, unless the party alleging that case names the officer or officers guilty of conduct which justifies an inference that the official act was done for a collateral purpose, and since no such attempt was made and the High Court did not find that any named officer or officers was or were responsible for that official act the plea that it was not bona fide must fail. We do not think that the law casts any such burden upon the party challenging the validity of the action taken by the State Government. The State Government has undoubtedly to act through its officers. We do not think that the law casts any such burden upon the party challenging the validity of the action taken by the State Government. The State Government has undoubtedly to act through its officers. What matters were considered, what matters were placed before the final authority, and who acted on behalf of the State Government is issuing the order in the name of the Governor, are all within the knowledge of the State Government, and it would be placing an intolerable burden in proof of a just claim to require a party alleging mala fides of State action to aver in his petition and to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer was responsible for misusing the authority of the state by taking action for a collateral purpose.” In our opinion, even in a contempt case it would amount to placing an intolerable burden upon the petitioner to aver in his petition and to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer was responsible for disobedience to orders of the court. Nor can we expect the petitioner to implead all the officials of the Government, right from the office Assistants to the Chief Minister, as respondents to his contempt petition. Just as the Government answers a writ petition as an entity, so must it answer the charge of contempt. It is a different matter that, if during the courts of such examination, the court finds that a particular official is solely or mainly guilty, it may punish him as stated hereinbefore, but, it is the duty of the Government as such to respect and honour the orders of the Court, and if any official is found to be interfering with the course of justice, it is equally the duty of the Government to take action against him. 6. Apart from the above aspect, we must say that the Government in this case has been guilty of inordinate delay and a clear violation of the direction of this court to dispose of the matter within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this court's order. It did not dispose of the matter within one month; it took more than nine months; it passed final orders only after coming to know of the notice issued in the Contempt Case. It did not choose to apply for extension of time, at any time, during this period. It did not dispose of the matter within one month; it took more than nine months; it passed final orders only after coming to know of the notice issued in the Contempt Case. It did not choose to apply for extension of time, at any time, during this period. We need not emphasize the constitutional scheme and the doctrine of rule of law, which demand that the orders of the court should be implicitly obeyed. Any brazen or deliberate refusal to obey the orders of the court is first and foremost a violation of the constitutional mandate; the punishment which may the meted out by the court is only secondary. Such disobedience, if repeated too often, will result in the very break-down of the constitutional machinery. A citizen who feels that he has been wronged either by the Government, or any other authority, approaches the court for relief; when he obtains the relief from the court, it should be implicitly given to him, A citizen is entitled to believe, and place his implicit faith in the efficacy of the orders of the court, and he can be disillusioned only at the peril of the very legal foundations of our society. He would be justified in complaining of contempt if the order is not implemented in its terms. We do recognise that, in some cases, the Government may not be able, with the best of intentions, to comply with the order within the time specified; certain administrative procedures have to be observed in the Government, as was pointed out by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Satish Chandra Sharma Union of India v. Satish Chandra Sharma (1980)2 S.C.C. 144 : (1980)2 S.C.R. 298 : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 600. But then, if for any reason it is not able to carry out or implement the order within the time specified, it must come forward soon after the expiry of the prescribed period with in application for extension of time, showing the reasons for which such extension is sought. In the absence of any such application, the court will be justified in presuming that the respondent is guilty of contempt, and it is for the respondent-whether the Government or any other officer or authority-to satisfy the court that there was no deliberate or wilful disobedience; the burden will be upon them to satisfy that they are not guilty of contempt. The officers constituting the Government must clearly understand this constitutional scheme, and abide by it. We cannot allow the orders of this court or any other court in this state to be disregarded in the manner, it has been done in this case. 7. But, inasmuch as in this case a specified individual has been named and he cannot be said to be responsible for wilful disobedience of the orders of the court in view of the facts stated by him in his counter-affidavits, he cannot be punished. Unfortunately, the Government is not impleaded as a party to this contempt case. 8. We, accordingly, close this contempt case. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, for issuance of appropriate instructions to all concerned. Order accordingly.