JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - The instant application u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by one Sri Maqbool Ahmad for taking action against the opposite parties: 1. Sri Bhute Lai, Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi. 2. Sri O.N. Chatopadhyay, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA), Varanasi, and 3. Sri M.H. Khan, Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate (FERA), Varanasi for the disobedience of an interim Order dated 24th May 1985 passed in Civil Misc. Writ No. 7193 of 1985 and also for utterances made by opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 thereby lowering down the dignity of the Court and tending to scandalize it much to the prejudice of the applicant. The prayer in the petition, however, is: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to summon the opposite parties along with the Passport and Air Ticket of the applicant on or before 2nd July and punish the opposite parties for committing the contempt of this Hon'ble Court both by not complying with the Order dated 24.05.1985 and also for making indecent -remarks with a view to belittle the authority of this Hon'ble Court. 2. In brief the facts as disclosed in the present petition which gave rise to the filing of the writ petition, passing of an interim order on 24.05.1985, and then ultimately the filing of this petition are these: In the year 1952 the applicant went to Singapore on an Indian passport and he started some business there. After the independence of Singapore the persons living in Singapore continuously since 1952 were granted the status of ' permanent residents ' of that country and were also permitted to retain their original nationality. The Petitioner who was residing at Singapore since 1952 thus became a permanent resident of Singapore and also retained his Indian nationality. As a permanent resident of Singapore the applicant could, in view of the policy of Singapore authorities, engage himself in business and could also acquire property there. The applicant is a partner of Maqbool Ahmad quddoos traders which deals in general merchandise. According to the laws of Singapore a permanent resident would cease to be a permanent resident of that country if he stayed in any other country on a visa issued by Singapore authorities for a period of more than one year. The applicant is a partner of Maqbool Ahmad quddoos traders which deals in general merchandise. According to the laws of Singapore a permanent resident would cease to be a permanent resident of that country if he stayed in any other country on a visa issued by Singapore authorities for a period of more than one year. The applicant obtained an Indian passport issued by the Indian Embassy at Singapore and a re-entry permit/visa valid up to 09.07.1985 issued by the authorities of Singapore for visiting India. The applicant came to India on 10.07.1984. After his arrival in India the Petitioner wanted to go back to Singapore on 20.12.1984 but when he was boarding a plane he was arrested on suspicion by the officials of the Enforcement Directorate in Bombay. Nothing incriminating was found from the possession of the applicant yet the applicant was arrested and his passport and the air ticket were seized by the authorities of the Enforcement Directorate. 3. On an application being made by the applicant he was released on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special) Allahabad, on 19.01.1985, with the condition that the applicant shall not leave India during the pungency of the case. The applicants' efforts to get back his passport and the air ticket from the authorities failed. The applicant succeeded in securing an order from the Magistrate to visit Singapore for two months but such an order was upset in revision by the IV Additional District Judge, Allahabad. 4. Feeling aggrieved and perhaps also in view of the fact that the re-entry permit/visa of the applicant was to expire on 09.07.1985 the applicant filed writ petition No. 7193 of 1985 in this Court on 17.05.1985 in which the following interim order was passed: The Director of the Enforcement Directorate (FERA), the Respondent, shall return the passport and the air ticket seized from the Petitioner so as to enable him (Petitioner) to pay a visit to Singapore. The Petitioner shall return to India, within one month from the date of the return of passport to him by the Director. Further the Director shall not hand over either the passport or the air ticket to the Petitioner unless and until the Petitioner furnishes a guarantee of a nationalized Bank to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only in favour of the Director. Further the Director shall not hand over either the passport or the air ticket to the Petitioner unless and until the Petitioner furnishes a guarantee of a nationalized Bank to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only in favour of the Director. It is made clear that if the Petitioner does not return to this country within a month from the date of the receipt of the passport from the Director, the said Bank guarantee shall stand forfeited. In addition to this the Petitioners' passport shall be impounded. Sd/S.K.D. Sd/S.K.M. 24-5-1985 5. It is stated in the petition that after obtaining a certified copy of the above interim order the applicant tried to contact opposite party No. 2 in his office but as he was not available nothing could be done. The applicant then rushed to Delhi and tried to contact opposite party No. 1 Sri Bhure Lai, Director of Enforcement Directorate, but he was informed there that the copy of the order be served on opposite party No. 2. The applicant after some efforts could find opposite party No. 2 in the High Court where he had come in connection with some other case and tried to serve upon him the certified copy of the High Court's order. The opposite party No. 2, however, refused to accept the copy of the order and instead made the following remarks : Copy ham naming ledge. High Court be order co ham kuchnahi samajhtey joy karna ho kar leejiye. Thereafter, it seems, an application along with the original certified copy of the High Court's order dated 24.05.1985 and the original Bank guarantee of Rs. 50,010/- were presented to opposite party No. 1 at Delhi who forwarded the same to opposite party No. 2 with suitable orders for compliance of the High Court's order. It further appears that on 07.06.1985 the applicant sent by registered post copies of the writ petition, the Order dated 24.05.1985 and the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- of Andhra Bank Jobnstonganj, Allahabad, to opposite party No. 2. On 18.06.1985 the applicant went to opposite party No. 2 but he was not present in office. It was on 25.06.1985 that the applicant could meet opposite party No. 2. 50,000/- of Andhra Bank Jobnstonganj, Allahabad, to opposite party No. 2. On 18.06.1985 the applicant went to opposite party No. 2 but he was not present in office. It was on 25.06.1985 that the applicant could meet opposite party No. 2. On the request of the applicant to opposite party No. 2 to comply with the orders of the High Court, the opposite party No. 2 is alleged to have remarked as under: High Court ke aise order co ham nail mantey hain. Aise arise order to ek botal sbarab main mil jitney hain. Dekhen asp Kaiser Singapore jayengey. It is also stated in the petition that the opposite party No. 3 Sri H.M. Khan, Enforcement Officer of the Directorate, met by chance to the applicant at Azamgarh and on the request of the applicant to return the passport and the air ticket Sri Khan demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/- for the return of the said documents. On the refusal of the applicant to pay any bribe the opposite party No. 3, Sri M.H. Khan, uttered as follows: Aise High Court hamne bahut dekhe hain. Dekhen turn 9 tareekh se pahley Kaiser Singapore chalet jagged. 6. On such allegations the petition was moved before me on 26.06.1985. It was founded on scandalous utterances made by opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 thereby inviting application of Section 2 of the Act as well as disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 24th May 1985 as has been reproduced above. No such allegation of disobedience or any utterances as attributed against opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 has, however, been made against opposite party No. 1. A direction was issued on 28.06.1985 to opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 to present themselves in person before this Court on 02.07.1985 along with the passport and the air ticket of the applicant. 7. In compliance with the above direction issued by this Court the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 appeared in Court on 02.07.1985 and also filed their counter affidavit. On that date while dispensing with the personal attendance of the said opposite parties the case was ordered to be listed on 04.07.1985, but it came to be heard on 05.07.1985. 8. In compliance with the above direction issued by this Court the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 appeared in Court on 02.07.1985 and also filed their counter affidavit. On that date while dispensing with the personal attendance of the said opposite parties the case was ordered to be listed on 04.07.1985, but it came to be heard on 05.07.1985. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing on behalf of the opposite parties and have also carefully gone through the petition, the supporting affidavit and the supplementary affidavit sworn by the applicant, the two counter affidavits filed by opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 as also the order of this Court passed on 24.05.1985, which contains the condition of furnishing a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50000/- by the applicant to enable him to secure the passport and the air ticket from the opposite parties. 9. During the course of the hearing of the case it was at no stage urged on behalf of the applicant that the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 ever did or said something so as to invite the application of Section 2 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner only pressed for taking of action in regard to the disobedience of the Order dated 25.04.1985. The plea for taking action for criminal contempt thus has not been pressed and had apparently been given up by the applicant. 10. The opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 in their counter-affidavit have categorically denied the allegation of the applicant that they made any utterances as attributed to them. They have submitted that they have great respect for judgments and orders passed by Courts of law and they had no intention and in fact did not disobey the Order dated 24th May 1985 passed by this Court. They have further stated that they could not utter any words which were to undermine the prestige of this Court. The averments in the counter-affidavits that there were some defects in the Bank Guarantee furnished by the applicant and to rectify the same telegram and letters were sent to the applicant and it was the applicant Himself who delayed the matter. The averments in the counter-affidavits that there were some defects in the Bank Guarantee furnished by the applicant and to rectify the same telegram and letters were sent to the applicant and it was the applicant Himself who delayed the matter. The supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant admits receipt of the telegram and letters sent by the opposite parties and states that since there were defects in the Bank guarantee furnished by the applicant as intimated vide letter dated 24.06.1985, he purchased a fresh Bank guarantee on 03.07.1985. 11. From the above it is crystal clear that the opposite parties were fully within their rights in not returning the passport and the air ticket to the applicant unless the condition imposed in the order of this Court dated 24.05.1985 was fully satisfied by the applicant, namely, that a valid and proper Bank guarantee of Rs. 50000/- was furnished by the applicant in favor of the Director of the Enforcement Directorate Delhi. It may be mentioned that there was no time limit fixed in the interim order of the High Court for the return of the documents and hence the opposite parties could not be charged with flouting the orders of this Court and more so when the condition of the said order was not fulfilled by the applicant before 03.07.1985. 12. From the above narration of facts I have come to the conclusion that the opposite parties did not flout the interim Order dated 24.05.1985 passed by this Court and are thus not guilty of any contempt. I am also fully satisfied that the instant petition has been moved by the applicant with the ulterior motive on cooked up allegations to harm and cause humiliation to the opposite parties with a view to achieve his object in getting his passport and air ticket released. The allegations and imputations in the petition are reckless, baseless and false. Such a petition deserves to be dismissed. It would be a sad day when a person succeeds in his game and achieves his goal by making pernicious allegations against public servants who are performing their duty within their rights. The allegations and imputations in the petition are reckless, baseless and false. Such a petition deserves to be dismissed. It would be a sad day when a person succeeds in his game and achieves his goal by making pernicious allegations against public servants who are performing their duty within their rights. Of course if the allegations of contempt are found to be true the dignity of this Court has to be upheld and this Court will not hesitate from dealing with the contemnor with iron hands and taking appropriate action against him, but in a case like the present where the allegations and imputations of the applicant have been found to be untrue, reckless, frivolous and false this Court has to protect the public servants against whom such allegations are made and they are entitled to be compensated suitably for the harassment. I, therefore, propose to award exemplary costs against the applicant for being paid to opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 personally. 13. While I have come to the conclusion that the petition must be dismissed with costs I would like to observe that it would be in the fitness of things that after the formalities have been completed and costs have been paid the passport and the air ticket of the applicant be returned to him. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties and the opposite party No. 2 himself frankly informed this Court that the formalities will take only 24 hours. Let this be done by 06.07.1985. 14. In the result the petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs which I assess at Rs. 2000/- to be paid to opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 personally in equal shares. In addition, the applicant shall also pay the expenditure incurred by opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 during their stay at Allahabad which is reported to be from 30.06.1985 to 05.07.1985. The learned Standing Counsel will prepare a bill of expenditure of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 and the learned Counsel log the applicant will make payment on that basis within 24 hours to the Standing Counsel. The applicant is also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- as costs to the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. The learned Standing Counsel will prepare a bill of expenditure of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 and the learned Counsel log the applicant will make payment on that basis within 24 hours to the Standing Counsel. The applicant is also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- as costs to the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. After the payments are made by the applicant the learned Standing Counsel will issue a receipt for the amount received by him as costs and for the amounts received by him on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3.