JUDGMENT V.P. Mathur, J. - This petition under S. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (Act No. 70 of 1971) was presented on 7-10-1983). The allegations of the petitioner were that he had filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1080 of 1983 in this Court and obtained an order on 29-9-1983 to the following effect : "Heard counsel for the parties. We direct the respondents to release 267 bags of Chewing tobacco detained by them on petitioner's furnishing a bank guarantee to the extent of the value of the seized tobacco with respondent 2. The orders with regard to manner in which the bank guarantee is to be dealt with shall be made at the time of the hearing of the petition." 2. In pursuance of this order, he submitted an application on 4-10-1983 along with bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 95,280.00 and handed it over to Mr. K.K. Sharma, Assistant Collector, Central Excise Fatehgrah, who directed that it should be given to his subordinate officer opposite party No. 2 Mr, C.R. Jaint. The petition was then presented , picture at all. In the writ petition he was not a before Mr. Jaint the same day, who directed that it should be given to the office according to the normal procedure, and the direction was complied with. The order of this Court was seen by both the respondents. This order was passed by the Bench of this Court in presence of Mr. K.K. Sharma and in spite of the order and its service, Mr. K.K. Sharma very rudely behaved with the applicant and refused to comply with the order. On 5-10-1983 the applicant personally met Mr. Jaint and requested for the release of the tobacco and he showed his helplessness. Therefore, the petitioner had to file this petition for contempt. 3. Counter-affidavits have been placed on the record both by Mr. K.K. Sharma and Mr. C.R. Jaint. The contention o f Mr. Sharma is that he received the order on 4-10-1983 and without giving him reasonable time to comply with this order, the petitioner rushed to this Court with this contempt petition on 7-10-1983. At his end, Mr. K.K. Sharma alleges that on 13-10-1983 the order of the Court has been complied with and the tobacco has been released. 4. The contention of Mr. At his end, Mr. K.K. Sharma alleges that on 13-10-1983 the order of the Court has been complied with and the tobacco has been released. 4. The contention of Mr. Jaint is that it was his duty as Superintendent Central Excise to pass the order of release and on receipt of the High Court's order on 4-10-1983, he came to know that the file of the case was lying at Kanpur with the Deputy Collector Central Excise, Technical, therefore, it was called for but since it did not come, the Assistant Collector namely Mr. K.K. Sharma personally went to Kanpur and brought the file and the goods were actually released on 13-10-1983. 5. It is admitted now that on 4-10-1983 information was communicated to the opposite parties about the passing of the order of this Court and on 13-10-1983 order has been complied with. Within three days from 4-10-1983, on 7-10-1983 this petition for contempt was hurriedly filed. , There is, of course a document on record which purports to be a letter issued by Mr. K.K. Sharma to the petitioner to the effect that he has forwarded his letter along with a copy of the High Court's order for necessary action to Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur who is an adjudicating officer in the case. This was of course uncalled for. The Deputy Collector, Technical did not come into the party. He was not a person to have released the goods. The same had to be released either by Mr. K.K. Sharma or by Mr. C.R. Jaint. It was duty to do so. Therefore, sending of the letter of the petitioner to the Deputy Collector, Technical, Kanpur was unnecessary and simple waste of time, as well as of Government expenses. Mr. K.K. Sharma, who is a Senior Officer, should have behaved in more responsible way by calling for the file and by passing necessary order of the release of the property. It appears that side by side with sending the letter to the Deputy Collector. Technical at Kanpur, he also arranged to get the file back and as will appear from the uncontroverted affidavit of Mr. Jaint that the file did not reach. Mr. K.K. Sharma managed to go personally and bring the file and then passed the release order and immediately released the property. Technical at Kanpur, he also arranged to get the file back and as will appear from the uncontroverted affidavit of Mr. Jaint that the file did not reach. Mr. K.K. Sharma managed to go personally and bring the file and then passed the release order and immediately released the property. As a matter of fact practical difficulties always arise when a Government department has to take an action in the light of the order of the High Court or any other court and some reasonable time has to be given for compliance of the order. In the order itself, no such time was fixed. The bank guarantee was furnished and a petition for release was moved on 4-10-1983 and without giving reasonable time for compliance of the order, the petitioner rushed to this court through the present petition of contempt. This type of quick access to the court without allowing reasonable time for the compliance of its orders cannot be appreciated. 6. Considering all the aspects of the matter, I am of the view that within reasonable time, the order of this Court was complied with in spite of Mr. K.K. Sharma's letter dated 4-10-1983 sent to the petitioner and no case for contempt is made out. The petition standi dismissed.