JUDGMENT : I.P. SINGH, J. 1. Notice of contempt of court was issued to Opposite Party No. 3 by this Court on 2-8-1984 for non-compliance of the order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 12997 of 1983, whereby Additional District Magistrate. Varanasi was directed to restore to the Petitioner his fire arm licence as well as the fire arm within a period of two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order passed by this Court. The said certified copy was produced before the Additional District Magistrate on 25-5-84 and in pursuance thereof he passed the order dated 29-5-1984 directing the opposite party No. 3, the Station Officer, Police Station Syed Raza, Varanasi, to hand over the licence and the fire arm to the Petitioner, but it was never complied with and thereby he violated the order of this Court. 2. In the Counter affidavit the only plea taken is that the applicant did not meet him at the Police Station to enable him to restore the licence and the fire arm to the Petitioner. This assertion is, however, challenged in the rejoinder affidavit and it is reiterated that the Petitioner had met the Opposite Party No. 3 and he had deliberately not returned the gun and the licence to him. 3. Learned Counsel for the contemner argued that in Writ Petition No. 12997 of 1983 the contemner was not a party and as such he could not be held guilty of contempt, if any. Annexure No. 1 to the Contempt Application shows that the only opposite parties to the said writ petition were (1) Commissioner Vararasi Division, Varanasl, (2) Additional District Magistrate (Executive), Varanasi, and (2) State of U.P. through Collector, Varanasi. Thus it is evident that the contemner Onkar Nath Tewari, Station Officer, P.S. Syed Raza, Varanasi was not an opposite party on record. 4. In case or Narain Singh Vs. S. Hardayal Singh Harika, Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Patiala, AIR 1958 P&H 180 it was held as under: (b) Contempt of Courts Act (1952), Section 3--Corporation--Liability of its officers and servants--(Constitution of India, Article 215). Corporations are subject to punishment for contempt and officers, agents, and others, who act for a corporation, and who knowingly violate or disobey an injunction against the corporation, are punishable for contempt even though the injunction is issued only against the corporation. Corporations are subject to punishment for contempt and officers, agents, and others, who act for a corporation, and who knowingly violate or disobey an injunction against the corporation, are punishable for contempt even though the injunction is issued only against the corporation. The officers of a municipal corporation cannot be deemed to have a licence to knowingly violate an injunctive order against a municipality. An injunction against a municipal corporation is equally binding on all individuals acting for the corporation, to whose knowledge the injunction comes, although they may not be parties to the suit. 5. On the same analogy when the State of U.P. and the Additional District Magistrate, Varanasi were opposite parties in the said writ petition then any order passed by the court binding them would also bind the officers of the State and their subordinates in rank who are supposed to give effect to the order of the court. The last man in the administrative heirarchy who is to comply with the order of the court would be bound by the order of the court as if he was also a party to the writ petition in which the order was passed. Any non-compliance of the order which was to be complied with by the officer or person concerned would render him guilty of the contempt of the court. 6. It is admitted to the contemner that the order of Additional District Magistrate was received at the Police S. Syed Raza, Varanasi of which he was Station Officer requiring to restore the fire arm and its licence to the Petitioner Dharam Deo Singh. However, his plea is that the Petitioner never met him at the Police Station concerned to enable him to restore the licence and the fire arm to him. 7. According to the petition the Petitioner himself had produced the order letter dated 29-5-1984 of the Additional District Magistrate before the Contemner at the Police Station concerned but the latter had not complied with the order. In para 4 of the counter affidavit it is mentioned that the order in question was received at the police station on 29-5-1984 at 7 p.m. through the pairokar Qazi Kamaluddin in the absence of the contemner. In para 4 of the counter affidavit it is mentioned that the order in question was received at the police station on 29-5-1984 at 7 p.m. through the pairokar Qazi Kamaluddin in the absence of the contemner. According to him he had left the police station on 29-5-1984 at 3.10 p.m. for the investigation of Case Crime No. 63 of 1984 u/s 395/397 IPC for district Rohtas in Bihar and had returned to the Thana on 31-5-1984 at 2.45 p.m. He denied that the Petitioner had met him at the Thana on 29-5-1984. 8. According to the Petitioner it was next on 19th July, 1984 that he went to P.S. Syed Raza and met the contemner, but even then the fire arm and its licence were not restored to him by the contemner. In the counter affidavit the contemner stated that on U-7-1984 he was at P.S. Syed Raza from 6.45 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. only and during this period the Petitioner had not met him. The Petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit does not specifically averred that he had visited the police station concerned on 19-7-1984 between the said hours. 9. I feel satisfied by the perusal of affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit that the Petitioner perhaps did not meet the contemner though he might have visited the police station concerned and met other officers there. 10. The said counter affidavit was filed in the court on 22-10-1984. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated on 19-4-1985 that the gun in question (and for that matter the licence also) has been restored to the Petitioner during the pendency of these proceedings after filing of the counter affidavit by opposite party No. 3 (contemner). It is, therefore, clear that the order of this Court has since been complied with. It is really unfortunate that the Petitioner had to resort to these proceedings during the pendency of which alone compliance of the order of this Court has been made. It is needless to record that it is expected of the Government Officers to comply with the orders of this Court promptly so as to avoid such proceedings. 11. The contemner has also offered his unconditional apologies which I feel are bona fide. I accept the said apologies. 12. This application is hereby dismissed.