A. N. SHUMAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE present contempt petition under S. 12 of the Contempt of Courts, Act has been filed against the opposite parties for punishing them for the disobedience of the, order passed by this Court. The facts of this case are startling which compelled the petitioner to approach this court. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of the building known as Ayodhya Bhawan in Mohalla Mac Robertsganj, Kanpur City. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 were the tenants and the office of the L. I. U. was situated in the, said building. The petitioner filed a suit against the opposite parties for ejectment from the said property in the Court of the Judges Small Causes which was decided by the Judge Small Causes Court. The opposite parties preferred a revision in this Court which was dismissed on 25-2-1983. They feeling dissatisfied against the said order filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India which too was summarily dismissed. Consequently the decree, which had become final, was put into execution by the petitioner. Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 filed objections under S. 47 of the Civil P. C. in the execution proceedings, which were rejected. The Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 it appears, in order to delay the execution of the decree filed a revision in this Court against the order rejecting their objections. The said revision was dismissed by this Court on 12-1-1988 and in that revision an undertaking was given by the learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties that they would vacate the disputed premises by the 31st of May, 1988. ( 3 ) SINCE the undertaking given by the learned Chief Standing Counsel was not honoured by the Opposite Parties, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 403 of 1988 on 14-6-1988 and in that contempt petition Mr. Yashpal Singh, the then Senior superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar. Opposite Party No. 1, and Mr. Anurag Goel, District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, Opposite party No. 2 were directed on 3-8-1988 to appear before this court in person and show cause why they should not be punished for disobeying the orders passed by this Court, but before the notices on the aforesaid Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No. 1, and Mr. Anurag Goel, District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, Opposite party No. 2 were directed on 3-8-1988 to appear before this court in person and show cause why they should not be punished for disobeying the orders passed by this Court, but before the notices on the aforesaid Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No. 1 was transferred from Kanpur Nagar and Opposite Party No. 2 proceeded to Canada in connection with some training. ( 4 ) IT is also relevant to state that an application for extension of time for vacating the premises in dispute was filed by Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 in the revision in which the learned Chief Standing Counsel has given an undertaking to vacate the premises in dispute by the 31st May, 1988. The said application came up for hearing before Honble A. P. Misra, J. on 15-7-88 who while rejecting the application, observed :-"the applicants are responsible persons being protectors and maintainers of law and order and it is expected from them to abide by law. Therefore, on the facts of this case it is not a fit case to grant further time for vacating the premises in question. I hope that better sense in the applicants shall prevail and they shall act in consonance with the position they occupy and not to act in a manner which may cast any aspersion on the applicants on whom, people look with great faith and hope for their place. "in spite of the above observations made by this court the Opposite parties did not vacate the premises though their application for extension of time was also rejected. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the Opposite Party had full knowledge about the orders passed by this court and also about the fact that notices have been issued to the former Senior superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, on the earlier contempt petition still the Opposite parties did not care to vacate the premises and wilfully continued to disobey the orders of this Court. ( 5 ) ( 6 ) THE execution court appointed one Sri. J. M. Naiyyar, Advocate, as Commissioner for the Purpose of executing the decree and delivering the possession of the premises in dispute to the petitioner. ( 5 ) ( 6 ) THE execution court appointed one Sri. J. M. Naiyyar, Advocate, as Commissioner for the Purpose of executing the decree and delivering the possession of the premises in dispute to the petitioner. The said Advocate Commissioner visited the premises on 8-8-88 but he could not succeed and on his report the learned IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, wrote a letter on 8-8-88 to Sri M. C. Rawat, Deputy Inspector General, P. A. C. for providing necessary P. A. C. aid to the Advocate Commissioner for executing the writ of possession forthwith in compliance of the order of the High Court. Apart from the aforesaid letter the Advocate Commissioner personally contacted Sri Vikram Singh, Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar, on 26-8-1988, who assured him for delivering the possession very soon. However, the said assurance was not honoured and in spite of the best efforts made by the Advocate Commissioner the decree could not be executed and the possession could not be delivered to the petitioner. Thus the petitioner being convinced from the conduct of the Opposite Parties that they would not honour the order passed by this Court, filed the present contempt petition against the Opposite Parties. ( 7 ) THE above narration of facts will clearly indicate that the Opposite parties have scant respect for the order passed by this Court which is not expected from them who hold high offices. ( 8 ) WHEN this petition came up for admission before me on 6-10-1988 I was inclined to summon all the Opposite Parties to appear in person and to initiate contempt proceedings against them but Mr. K. N. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, stated before me that he is interested only in getting the possession of the house, I, therefore, sent for the Chief Standing Counsel Mr. R. P. Singh, and directed him to instruct the Opposite Parties to honor the orders passed by this Court otherwise the Court has no option but to proceed in the matter according to law and the case was adjourned for 11-10-1988. Today when the case came up for admission, Mr. R. P. Singh, Chief Standing Counsel, gave a statement before me that Premises No. 12/477 Civil Lines, Mac Robertsganj, Kanpur Nagar, has been vacated by the Opposite Parties and the vacant possession of the premises has been handed over to Mr. Today when the case came up for admission, Mr. R. P. Singh, Chief Standing Counsel, gave a statement before me that Premises No. 12/477 Civil Lines, Mac Robertsganj, Kanpur Nagar, has been vacated by the Opposite Parties and the vacant possession of the premises has been handed over to Mr. Kailash Nath Bhargava. This fact has been accepted by Mr. K. N. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, and a letter signed by Kailash Nath Bhargava, landlord, has also been filed before me in which he has stated that he has received the actual vacant possession of the premises in question from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar, in terms of the decree passed in Small Cause Court Suit No. 60 of 1976 by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, contended that it is true that the premises has been ultimately vacated by the Opposite Parties but they are guilty of contempt inasmuch as they have deliberately committed wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. In view of the fact that the present Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, who have been recently transferred to Kanpur, have taken pains to get the matter of vacating the premises in dispute expedited by the department and the fact that the order of this Court has ultimately been complied with I am of the opinion that it is no longer necessary to initiate contempt proceedings against the Opposite Parties. ( 10 ) ). ( 10 ) ). However, the facts of this case are shocking and indicate that the officers of the Police Department of Kanpur Nagar, who were responsible for not vacating the premises in dispute in spite of the order of this Court, have scant respect for the orders passed by this Court and the apex body of the highest Court of the country i. e. Supreme Court and as such before parting with the case I am compelled to observe that the conduct of the officers of the Police Department of Kanpur, who were responsible for not vacating premises No. 12/477 Civil Lines, Mac Robertsganj, Kanpur Nagar, is highly reprehensible and I am confident that the Police as a whole, specially the High Officers of the Police Department who are protectors of the life and property of the citizens, will desist in future from flouting the orders passed by a competent court of law so that the people may not lose their faith. ( 11 ) WITH the aforesaid observations the petition is rejected. Petition dismissed. .