G. M. Lodha, C. J.: - Deliberate disregard, clear contraventions, flagrant flouting and vehement violation, on the margin of almost contempt of the judgment and directions of Hon'ble Chief Justice Saikia and Justice T. C. Das (Dated 12.6.87 in Civil Rule 545 of 1987) by the Director, Inland Water Transport Assam Government, has multiplied this litigation in second round, which could have been and should have been avoided. 2. The State functionaries even after 4 decades of the Constitutional enlightenment, should know that "Majesty of Law" and "Rule of Law" are not for sermons or decoration on "Law day", but the entire bedrock of Constitution, democracy and State is based on it. May we remind them of what Great Law Maker Maharishi Manu said - @@Hindi@ "Dharma evam batohacti dharmo rakshatih, @@Hindi@@ tasmatdharma on hantavyo maa no dharmo hatovodbot." Manu/8/15 Society is ruined by the destruction of law and Dharma. The effect of protection of law and Dharma too is a protector and therefore the Dharma and Janice should not be destroyed. The Shatpath Brahman (XIV. 4-2-26) and the Brihad-Aranyak Upanishad (1-4-14) in identical terms lay down Supremacy or the Law as under : - "The Law is the ruler even of the rulers and kings. Therefore, there is nothing higher than law. With the aid of the law even a weekling overcomes the strong ? " In the view of the Brihadaranyak Upanished, the Law is a king of kings:- "Kasharpane bhavedandaya yatranyab prakrito Janah; @@Hindi@ tatra Raja bhavaiddandayayh Sohastramiti dharana." Manu 1/111/336 The king was net superior to law in the vedic age and be could have been punished like any other citizen for violation of law. 3. We need not enter into repeatation of exercise of narration of fact?, as they find exhaustive mention in the first judgment dated 12.6.87; and the present order is logical and legal consequtrce of it, due to unwarranted adamency of State functionaries to treat "citizens" as "subjects". Unfortunately "yours most obedient servant" and "King commits no wrong" Lord dive's British Imperialistic "hangover" is even now relished rather exercised by few bureaucrats, who still feel extraordinary highly exalted egoistic superiority of "veto" power against tie "citizens,", even though the Constitution has been given to us by the citizen?, i.e. "We the people of India". 4. Unfortunately "yours most obedient servant" and "King commits no wrong" Lord dive's British Imperialistic "hangover" is even now relished rather exercised by few bureaucrats, who still feel extraordinary highly exalted egoistic superiority of "veto" power against tie "citizens,", even though the Constitution has been given to us by the citizen?, i.e. "We the people of India". 4. The present case demonstrates the typical British Bureaucratic hangover which deserves to be curbed for retaining supremacy of Law which is the first pillar of our freedom, democracy and fundamental rights, the basic structures of the great Constitution of our Motherland. 5. Let us now (urn to the history of this litigation and «hen take the above "Preamble" of our judgment to its logical conclusion. 6. We have heard Mr. D. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Prasad, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 7. We find that on 12th of June, 1987 in Civil Rule No. 545 of 1987 the controversy regarding cancellation of the contract for work of construction of vessel by the petitioner was considered and this Court after an elaborate discussion issued directions to the respondents in the following terms : "We accordingly direct the respondents to reconsider the decision of cancellation of the works allotted to the petitioners after discussion/negotiation with the petitioners across the table keeping in view the expenditure already incurred by the petitioners and the tenure of the contract still left for its completion, in a realistic spirit. We direct the petitioners to meet the respondents particularly, respondent No. 3 and participate at the discussion/negotiation in the same spirit within a period of 10 days from today. We further direct that the impugned order of cancellation dated 1st July, 1987 (Annexure 9) be kept in abeyance and no further action be taken pursuant thereto during this period of 10 days. The parties shall be free to act according to the decision taken in the process of discussion/negotiation. Let the decision be recorded for benefit of both the parties. " 8. Obviously before issuing the above directions this Court had also considered the constitutional legal aspect in respect of the jurisdiction of this Court to interefere in matters of contract and specific reference was made to the observation in Harminder Singh vs. Union of India A.I.R. 1986 SC 1257. 9. " 8. Obviously before issuing the above directions this Court had also considered the constitutional legal aspect in respect of the jurisdiction of this Court to interefere in matters of contract and specific reference was made to the observation in Harminder Singh vs. Union of India A.I.R. 1986 SC 1257. 9. This Court was also conscious of the fact that the petitioners have invested huge amount and the contract is for a period of IS months and therefore the major portion of period is still left. 10. It was expressly hinted in the order of this Court that the respondents should give a fresh look into the matters and after free and frank negotiations with the petitioners arrive at a mutually beneficial solution without wasting much time for performance of the contract. 11. Obviously the judgment read as a whole clearly gives an impression that the intention of the directions was that the respondents should find out a mutually beneficial solution and that too must be done without wasting much time for performance of the contract. 12. The prime factors which were to be given due consideration during the discussion and negotiations were expressly pointed out as the expenditure already incurred by the petitioners and the tenure of the contract still left for its completion. Obviously the edge was in favour of reconsidering the order of cancellation in such a manner that the contract can be performed if it is feasible and possible to do so. 13. It is well-known that this Court's directions are to be respected and implemented by both the parties both in letter and spirit. It is never intended that the parties against whom the directions are given should only perform a ritual or formality or negotiations or consideration with a bias to stick to their decision or to reinforce it. The emphasis of such directions of this Court is on objectivity and objective consideration of the relevant factors spelt down in the directions and the judgments. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly pointed out that the respondents have not filed any reply to this writ petition controverting the facts alleged. We further find that after negotiations the ultimate outcome was in the form of letter dated 28th July, 1987 which reads as under : "From : The Director, Inland Water Transport &C. S. S. Assam, Guwahati - 7. We further find that after negotiations the ultimate outcome was in the form of letter dated 28th July, 1987 which reads as under : "From : The Director, Inland Water Transport &C. S. S. Assam, Guwahati - 7. To : MIS SUBHASH PROJECTS AND MARKETING LTD. DUGAR BUILDING FANCY, JAIL ROAD, GUWAHATI-781001 Sub : CONSTRUCTION/SUPPLY OF 1 (ONE) NO. STEEL DOUBLE DECKER VESSEL FOR C.T.C. REF : Your letter No. SPO-59/8387/PBK, DTD. 16.6.87. Sir, With reference to the above mentioned letter, dated 16.6.87 and received on 22nd July/87, I would like to inform you that as per the order/direction, Dtd. 12.6.87 of the Hon'ble High Court; Guwahati, the Director, Inland Water Transport Department, (Assam) already discussed on 22/6/87, with your representative in regard to cancellation order, dtd 1st June 87. In that said discussion, once more, this Directorate has cleared its stand on the said cancellation order and found absolutely nothing necossary to revoke the cancellation order No. DWT (T) - 16/85/26, Dt. 1st June, 87 in regard to work order No. DWT (T) 16/85114, Dt. 17.3.87. The decision taken after the process of discussion have already been recorded in the file of the Directorate as ordered by the Hon'ble Court. This is for information please. Yours faithfully, Sd/ - A. D. Lahkar Director, I.W.T. & C S.S., Assam, Guwahati - 7." 15. We are shocked at the language used in this letter only shows that the respondent No. 3 found absolutely nothing necessary to revoke the cancellation order. We are unable to appreciate as to what were the factors which weighed with the respondent No. 3 to completely ignore the two factors pointed out by this Court and which have been extracted above. In our considered opinion the letter dated 28th July, 1987 prima facie gives an impression that the Director reiterated its stand taken while cancelling the contract and just brushed aside any other consideration against it without even objectively considering them in an unbiased detached impartial manner. 16. We are also constrained to observe that brushing aside the consideration which had weighed with this Court by a non-speaking order exhibits that scant regard was shown to the detailed directions of this Court. 17. 16. We are also constrained to observe that brushing aside the consideration which had weighed with this Court by a non-speaking order exhibits that scant regard was shown to the detailed directions of this Court. 17. We are conscious of the fact that it was not incumbent upon the respondents to quash the order cancelling the contract if on an objective consideration of all the facts mentioned in the judgment of this Court it would have been found necessary to reiterate or stick to the earlier order of cancellation only. 18. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that some of the matters which were earlier made grounds for cancellation of the contract by order dated 1st June, 1987 became non-existent on the date of the negotiations or conference because the land dispute has been settled by the time. In this connection reference was made to the order of the Criminal Court dated 10th July, 1987 which reads as under :- " 10.7.87. Both the parties are present. Seen field police report and the petition of the 2nd party dated 1-6-87 and also the compromise petition of both the parties submitted today to the effect that the dispute have been settled between them amicably and hence prayed to drop the case as there is no apprehension of breach of peace. Thus I am satisfied to drop the proceedings and the attachment orders on the D/L is hereby vacated. Inform police accordingly." 19. Our attention was also drawn to the minutes dated 22nd June, 1987 in which some of the points have been discussed. It was pointed out that even when the Director was told that 20 M. T. steel has already been dumped in site and be could see it for himself, the Director expressed doubts that those may be for some other work and refused to visit the godown. As earlier pointed out in the first judgment of this Court that normally this Court would not enter into controversy of details because primarily these are questions of facts on which unless it becomes very compelling, and the facts become very patent, this Court would not adjudicate them under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As earlier pointed out in the first judgment of this Court that normally this Court would not enter into controversy of details because primarily these are questions of facts on which unless it becomes very compelling, and the facts become very patent, this Court would not adjudicate them under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. However, we do feel that brushing aside important consideration in a very light hearted manner by the Directorate and failure to apply mind objectively with those considerations have vitiated the proceedings dated 22nd June, 1987 and the impugned letter dated 28th July, 1987 cannot be sustained. 20. Consequently we quash the proceedings dated 22nd Jane, 1987 and the consequential letter dated 28th July, 1987 as we are of the opinion that it is in flagrant disrgard, clear violalion and contravention of the earlier judgment of this Court and fails to carry out and implement it both in letter and spirit. 21. In the earlier judgment the order dated 1st June, 1987 (Annexure-IX) was kept in abeyance. The respondents should have taken benefit of the directions given by this Court for an objective adjudication afresh so that this Court could have been saved second innings of litigation. Unfortunately this was not done. We have, therefore, no option as we feel that now the order dated 1st June, 1987 cannot be sustained as its reconsideration or giving a fresh look at it has been denied without any tangible grounds. However, we want to make it clear and explicit that although the order dated 1st June, 1987 and the later order and proceedings as mentioned above go to show that the respondents have cancelled the contract in a very casual manner without serious consideration and without taking into account that the petitioners have invested huge amount and were aware of no difficulties, which were removed in the infrastructure including that of the land etc., yet it would not preclude the respondents from laying down the conditions for a proper execution of the work order and the contract This should be done by a speaking order, if at all it becomes necessary. As a legal and logical consequence of such an order if the respondents find any serious infirmity warranting further directions or orders detrimental to the petitioners, this judgment would not preclude them from doing so provided it is done in an impartial, detached manner after objective consideration. In that case as the learned Senior Government Advocate has himself mentioned during the arguments the respondents would first endeavour how to compensate the petitioners in a befitting manner. 22. Consequently the writ petition is accepted as indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties would bear their own cost.