JUDGMENT 1. - What we are called upon to decide first before entering into the merits of the present contempt petition is whether the Additional Advocate General or any Government Advocate can appear on behalf of the present contemnors ? 2. We have heard Shri Virendra Bandhu, applicant and Shri M.I. Khan associated with Shri O.P. Sharma who appeared on behalf of the contemnors. Shri B.L. Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not argued on the controversy raised by Shri Bandhu and only stressed that Shri V.B.L. Mathur, Chief Secretary (respondent No. 3) has not put appearance before this Court so far in defence to the orders of this Court passed from time to time. 3. The first contention urged by Shri Virendra Bandhu was that under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in case of 'criminal contempt', the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court may take action at its own motion or on the motion by Advocate General or any person with the consent in writing by Advocate General. Shri Bandhu urged that Section 15 thus debars the Advocate General from appearing in the case, as the person who accords sanction, cannot appear as a Counsel for any of the parties. Shri Bandhu added that "Advocate General" should be given wider interpretation and it should include "Additional/Asstt./Dy. Advocate General" 4. Next limb of his arguments is that under Rule 324 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 (for short, "High Court Rules") where an order is made directing issuance of a notice to any person to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court, notice of the said order is required to be served on the Government Advocate. According to him, 'Government Advocate' is an Officer of the Court and is an Advocate of the Court for the purposes of contempt proceedings and that being so, a notice is served to the Government Advocate to represent just and proper cause impartially not as an Advocate of any party but as an Officer of the Court. According to him, 'Government Advocate' is an Officer of the Court and is an Advocate of the Court for the purposes of contempt proceedings and that being so, a notice is served to the Government Advocate to represent just and proper cause impartially not as an Advocate of any party but as an Officer of the Court. Shri Bandhu added that Government Advocate assists the Court in arriving at a proper conclusion in the matter of contempt proceedings and as such his role is to assist the court only and in this view of the matter, Shri Bandhu stressed that Government Advocate cannot appear and plead on behalf of the contemnors. 5. Shri Bandhu has referred some of the citations which we will deal hereinafter. 6. In Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. (1973 (3) All E.R. p. 54) , the Role of Attorney General has been discussed by the House of Lords. In that case, the Attorney General had decided to take no action against alleged contemnors. Their Lordships held that the Attorney-General has a right to bring before the Court any matter which he thinks may amount to contempt of court and which he considers should in the public interest be brought before the court. The House of Lords observed as under:- "The party aggrieved has the right to bring before the court any matter which he alleges amounts to contempt but he has no duty to do so. So if the party aggrieved failed to take action either because of expenses or because he thought it better not to do so, very serious contempt might escape punishment if the Attorney General had no right to act. But the Attorney General is not obliged to bring before the court every prima facie case of contempt reported to him. It is entirely for him to judge whether it is in the public interest that he should act." This citation does not help Shri Bandhu as here the question raised is entirely different. 7. In Gouriet v. Union of Post Officer Workers (1977 (1) All E.R. p. 696) , question considered by their Lordships was, what the Court should do when the Attorney-General refuses to give consent or to accord permission to move the Court for contempt of Court. This ruling has also no bearing to the objection raised and thus is irrelevant. 8. In Gouriet v. Union of Post Officer Workers (1977 (1) All E.R. p. 696) , question considered by their Lordships was, what the Court should do when the Attorney-General refuses to give consent or to accord permission to move the Court for contempt of Court. This ruling has also no bearing to the objection raised and thus is irrelevant. 8. In Board of Revenue, U.P. v. Vinay Chandra ( AIR 1981 SC 723 ) , the Supreme Court held that if the High Court is directly moved by a petition by a private-person feeling aggrieved, (not being the Advocate General) the High Court has, in such a situation, a discretion to refuse to entertain the petition, or to take cognizance on its own motion. 9. In Conscientious Group v. Mohd. Yunus (1987) (3) S.C.C. 89 , their Lordships held that the consent of Attorney General or Solicitor General is a condition precedent; and that refusal to grant consent on irrelevant grounds is open to court's interference and the Court may also take suo motu action treating the petition as information to the Court. The proposition laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court is not in dispute. It has no bearing for the purpose of the present question raised by Shri Bandhu. 10. In P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker (1988 (3) S.C.C. p. 167) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court discussed various provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Supreme Court Contempt of Court Rules, 1975 which provide the procedure and mode of taking cognizance in criminal contempt cases etc. 11. The aforesaid cases cited by Mr. Bandhu in our opinion will not apply to the present case. Here we are concerned with civil contempt and not with the criminal contempt. 12. Now we pass on to have a look at the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act in addition to other relevant provisions of other laws and contemporaneously, we will deal with the question raised at the Bar. 13. Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, a person who has committed civil contempt is punished. Under Section 15 thereof, cognizance is taken by the Court in criminal contempt cases. We have heard Shri M.I. Khan who has filed power on behalf of the contemnors as their advocate. 13. Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, a person who has committed civil contempt is punished. Under Section 15 thereof, cognizance is taken by the Court in criminal contempt cases. We have heard Shri M.I. Khan who has filed power on behalf of the contemnors as their advocate. Shri Khan is not appearing in the present contempt petition as Additional Advocate General but he has filed Vapalatnama on August 5, 1989 and is appearing as advocate only. Shri Khan vociforcely urged that he is not discharging duty of Additional Advocate General and is appearing as advocate of the contemnors. Shri Khan added that he is not Government Advocate in the sense as is used in Rule 324 of the High Court Rules and that apart, no notice has been served to any of the Government Advocate as provided under Rule 324, in the case in hand. Lastly Shri Khan urged that the law does not prohibit an advocate who holds Office of Additional Advocate General to act as Advocate and to appear on behalf of the contemnors. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. 14. Article 165 of the Constitution of India provides that the Governor of of each State shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a Judge of a High Court to be Advocate General for the State. Advocate General has to give advice to the Government of the State upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Governor, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force. The Advocate General is the constitutional functionary and he is not servant of the Government but is the constitutional functionary appointed by the Governor. 15. We may state that there are some constitutional duties of the Advocate General. Parliament may call Attorney General to advise it on any point of law, referred by the Parliament or Speaker to the Attorney General. Similarly, Legislature of the State may call to address it on any point of law referred by legislature or Speaker to him Advocate General (sic). Advocate General is an ex officio member of the Bar Council of the State also. Similarly, Legislature of the State may call to address it on any point of law referred by legislature or Speaker to him Advocate General (sic). Advocate General is an ex officio member of the Bar Council of the State also. He performs his duties under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If he feels that there is any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of charitable or religious nature, then Advocate General can be approached for according permission to move to the Civil Court for taking action in accordance with provisions of Section 92, C.P.C. 16. It is not necessary to narrate the duties of Advocate General but it is clear that the Advocate General is a constitutional functionary appointed by the Governor. He has to perform his duties an I functions cast upon him under the Constitution of India as well as under various laws enacted by the Parliament or Legislature of a State. 17. It is pertinent to mention here that the framers of the Constitution have used word, "a" in article 165 of the Constitution of India. As said earlier, article 165 provides that the Governor shall appoint, 'a' person to be Advocate General of the State. The word, "a" means any person who is qualified to hold the office. So, limitation is only that 'a' person who is qualified to hold office of Judge can only be appointed as Advocate General of State and the Governor has a choice to select any person out of the qualified persons available. The spirit of article 165 of the Constitution is to have only one Advocate General of the State. It will not be out of place here to mention that there is a prevailing practise in number of States to have Additional/Assistant/Deputy Advocate Generals. In our State, generally the Government is having Additional Advocate Generals and thereafter a team of the law Officers including Government Advocates. We are of the view that the scope of Article 165 of the Constitution cannot be extended and should not be extended to include the office of the Additional Advocate General. The Additional Advocate General is a law officer of the State, may be on better footing than others, but he cannot be described as Advocate General for the purposes of Article 165 of the Constitution of India. The Additional Advocate General is a law officer of the State, may be on better footing than others, but he cannot be described as Advocate General for the purposes of Article 165 of the Constitution of India. We are of the view that the Additional Advocate General cannot perform duties cast under Article 165 of the Constitution of India and a narrow interpretation should be given to the word. "Advocate General" by holding that there would be only one Advocate General of the State and the persons holding the offices having different nomenclatures like. Additional/Assistant/Deputy Advocate Generals do not fall within the purview of 'Advocate General' under article 165. Apart from that, we should consider provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 2 thereof defines "advocate" which means an advocate entered in any roll of advocate maintained under the provisions of the Act. 'Advocate' is professional and is not a businessman. He is having some rights under the Advocates Act as well as corresponding duties under it. 'Advocate' may hold any office sometimes but he cannot hold any 'post'. Law Officer holds office but not a post. Law Officer continues to be advocate on roll and is engaged by the State as an advocate so as to perform and conduct the cases of the State or to advise the State in legal affairs. Advocate of the choice can be appointed by any party to appear and plead on its behalf and to advise it in legal affairs. Similarly the State has engaged law officers who continues to be 'advocate' and appear and plead and act on behalf of the State. They advise the State in legal affairs also. 18. It is useful to mention here that provisions of Order 27, Rule 2, C.P.C. provides that persons being ex officio or otherwise authorised to act for the Government in respect of any judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be the recognised agent by whom appearances, acts and application under the Code may be made or done on behalf of the Government. Rule 4 thereof further provides that the Government pleader in any court shall be the agent of the Government for the purpose of receiving the processes against the Government issued by such court. The word, 'pleader' used in Rule 4 of O. 27, C.P.C. further needs interpretation to cover cases of advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961. Rule 4 thereof further provides that the Government pleader in any court shall be the agent of the Government for the purpose of receiving the processes against the Government issued by such court. The word, 'pleader' used in Rule 4 of O. 27, C.P.C. further needs interpretation to cover cases of advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961. Prior to 1961, there were pleaders/advocates but thereafter, there is no pleader and every one is 'advocate', if enrolled on the roll of the Bar Council. Rule 4, of O. 27, CPC thus has got wider connotation and the Government pleader means Government Advocate appointed to perform and conduct cases of the Government so as to appear, plead and act on behalf of the State. 19. Even according to Rules 2 & 4 of O.27, CPC, the Government Advocate is agent of the State may be for limited purposes. The High Court has also amended the rules in conformity with the aforesaid provision enacting the provision that the notice may be served to the Government Advocate in High Court. R. 6 of Order 27, CPC further provides that the Court may also, in any case in which the Government pleader is not accompanied by any person on the part of the Government who may be able to answer any material question relating to the suit, direct the attendance of such a person. Thus, Order 27, CPC, deals with the duties and powers of the pleader and Government Advocate. 20. Rule 8 of Order 27, CPC provides that where the Government undertakes the defence of a suit against a public officer, the Government pleader, upon being furnished with authority to appear and answer the plaint, shall apply to the Court, and upon such application the Court shall cause a note of his authority to be entered in the register of civil suit. Thus it is not necessary in civil suit to file power. Appearance of the Government Advocate/pleader is sufficient even on behalf of a public officer. Then, statement of public officer is recorded and an entry is made in the register. 21. Thus it is not necessary in civil suit to file power. Appearance of the Government Advocate/pleader is sufficient even on behalf of a public officer. Then, statement of public officer is recorded and an entry is made in the register. 21. Rule 8 B of Older 27, CPC defines 'Government pleader' which read as under : "8B Definitions of "Government" and "Government pleader"-In this order unless otherwise expressly provided "Government" and "Government pleader" mean respectively- (a) in relation to any suit by or against the Central Government, or against a public officer in the service of the Government, the Central Government and such pleader as that Government may appoint whether generally or specially for the purposes of this order ; (b) omitted. (c) in relation to any suit by or against a State Government or against public officer in the service of a State, the State Government and the Government pleader as defined in clause (7) of Section 2 or such other pleader as the State Government may appoint, whether generally or specially, for the purposes of this Order." Therefore, the Additional Advocate General has to be treated as a Govt. pleader for the purpose of C.P.C. and his appointment would fall within the purview of R. 8B of Order 27, C.P.C. The Government has a power to appoint by general or special order, any person as Government Advocate/Pleader, for the purpose of conducting litigation on its behalf and it is not necessary to issue orders of appointment in every individual case. Advocate can be appointed for a particular case or by general order also. Government Advocate can be asked to perform particular type of work or to appear in all courts to conduct particular type of litigation. 22. In the case of Additional Advocate General, every time, the Government passes an order that he will appear in a particular case. His appointment is of general nature but allocation of work is done by the State Government by specific orders on every file. 23. 22. In the case of Additional Advocate General, every time, the Government passes an order that he will appear in a particular case. His appointment is of general nature but allocation of work is done by the State Government by specific orders on every file. 23. Sub-section (7) of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines "Government pleader" as under:- "Government pleader" includes any officer appointed by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions expressly imposed by this Code on the Government pleader and also any pleader acting under the directions of the Government pleader." So, the Additional Advocate General is a Government pleader appointed by the State Government to perform all or any of the civil cases. 24. A Government pleader continues to be an advocate on roll and just like every party, the State is also party in civil cases. In civil matters and proceedings, the Government pleader can represent the State in litigation. Government Advocate referred to in Rule 324 of the High Court Rules is different than the office of the Additional Advocate General and the Additional Advocate General is in fact agent of the State as defined under O. 27, CPC to perform the cases of the State and to advise the State. 25. The next plank of the contention put by Shri Bandhu is that 'civil contempt' and 'criminal contempt' stands on a very thin line and a thin distinction and the possibility that civil contempt may later on be converted into criminal contempt cannot be ruled out. May be Shri Bandhu is correct. However, the procedure prescribed for both types of contempt is different. In civil contempt, sanction or permission of the Advocate General is not necessary as is provided in the case of criminal contempt. Similarly, in civil contempt, it is not necessary that the Govt. Advocate should be informed or notice should be served. 26. Rule 324 of the High Court Rules finds place in Chapter XVIII of the High Court Rules which relates to the proceedings other than original trials. So, the word, "proceedings" used as Heading in this Chapter XVIII relates to other mixed matters not falling within the purview of 'trial of criminal cases'. Naturally, in all the rules, there is reference of 'trial' and criminal proceedings. In these circumstances. So, the word, "proceedings" used as Heading in this Chapter XVIII relates to other mixed matters not falling within the purview of 'trial of criminal cases'. Naturally, in all the rules, there is reference of 'trial' and criminal proceedings. In these circumstances. Rule 324 of the High Court Rules will have to be interpreted that it only deals with criminal contempt and does not deal with civil contempt. In the case of civil contempt, it is not necessary to issue notice to the Government Advocate, e.g., if there is a case of breach of order relating to the injunction passed by the Court, the State may not necessarily be a party and there is no necessity to issue notice to the Government Advocate, in civil contempt. We are therefore of the view that Rule 324 should be interpreted in a way that it only deals with criminal contempt and in criminal contempt only notice will have to be issued to the Government Advocate. 27. From the above narration, we are of the opinion that in civil contempt petitions, Additional Advocate General can appear. Moreover, in the case at hand, Shri M. I. Khan has appeared as an Advocate on behalf of the respondents and he has filed a power on their behalf. Our view is fortified by decision of the Supreme Court in T. C. Hingorani v. G.P. Misra (Civil appeal No. 564/1964 decided on 24.9.1962) wherein the controversy raised was whether Advocate General can appear in contempt petition or not. Their Lordships held that the Advocate General can appear in the cases of nature specified therein. However, we would like to observe that we have not interpreted the law relating to the criminal contempt petitions and have not decided whether the Advocate General can appear in criminal contempt case or not. Here we are only concerned with the matter regarding civil contempt. 28. Hence we find no force in the contentions of Shri Virendra Bandbu and his objection is over-ruled and his application is dismissed with no order as to costs, and Shri M. I. Khan is allowed to appear, plead and act on behalf of the contemnors. 29. We may now proceed to consider the question about the personal appearance of Shri V. B. L. Mathur in Court. An abridged factual backdrop will be helpful in deciding the question. 29. We may now proceed to consider the question about the personal appearance of Shri V. B. L. Mathur in Court. An abridged factual backdrop will be helpful in deciding the question. Petitioner K. K. Singh, had filed writ petition No. 893/1980 which was allowed on October 31, 1988 by a Bench of two Judges consisting of J. S Verma C. J., (as he then was) and one of us, (Farooq Hasan, J.,) with the directions to the State Government to review the petitioner's case at all the stages indicated in the manner pointed out in that order within six months keeping in view the fact that the petitioner will soon reach the age of superannuation. 30. K.K. Singh, petitioner presented this contempt petition on May 22, 1989 with the prayer that the contemnor should be punished as they have failed to comply with order dated 31st October, 1988. A Bench consisting of V.S. Dave, J., and one of us (Farooq Hasan, J.,) on May 25, 1989 directed as under:- ".......On the pleadings we are satisfied that it is a fit case for taking cognizance for contempt against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and direct issuance of notice to them as to why they should not be held up for disobedience of the order of this Court dated 31.10.88. The respondents shall appear in person and answer the contempt charge on July 4, 1989". On July 4, 1989. bench consisting of S.S. Byas, J., and one of us (Farooq Hasan, J.,) considered the submissions of Shri O. P. Sharma who appeared on behalf of the respondents, granted exemption to the respondents from putting appearance on that date, and ordered as under:- "Taking all these factors into consideration, we hereby grant four weeks time to the respondents to make a compliance of the directions of this Court. In case the directions issued by this Court are not complied with within the aforesaid period of four weeks, the respondents will put personal appearance on the next date of hearing. The compliance should be made in full and final." The matter subsequently came up before a Bench consisting of G. K. Sharma, J., and one of us (Farooq Hasan J..) on August 4, 1989. The Bench observed that the respondent Nos. The compliance should be made in full and final." The matter subsequently came up before a Bench consisting of G. K. Sharma, J., and one of us (Farooq Hasan J..) on August 4, 1989. The Bench observed that the respondent Nos. 1, 2, & J were not present in person and the order by this Court dated 31.10.1988 has not been complied with fully. The Bench observed and ordered as under : ".............We have perused the reply and two annexures dated 17.6.89 and 3.8.89. After seeing these documents and the reply, it is clear that the respondents have not complied with the order of this Court dated 31.0.1988 in full. Another unfortunate and shameful affair is that after giving notice of the contempt application to the respondents and after passing a clear and specific order on 4-7-89, the order has not yet been complied with in full and another disobedience is that the direction was issued to the respondents to appear in person today. The compliance is not made in full and the respondents are still not present in person today, all this shows that the respondents have no respect whatsoever for the court and they are in habit of disobedience of the order of the court apart from showing contemptuous attitude. In such circumstances, we do not want to pass any order in the absence of the respondents. Therefore, we direct that respondents, Sarva Shri S.D. Srivastava, R. Rama Krishna and V. B.L. Mathur be summoned by warrant of arrest. The Addl. Registrar (Judl.) is directed to issue warrants today and send the warrants to the Director General of Police of Rajasthan Jaipur for compliance. Put up on 7-8-89." On August 5, 1989, an application was moved by Mr. M.I. Khan who is said to have approached the Chief Justice to constitute a bench immediately as the directions were issued for issuance of warrants of arrest. However, the matter was placed before a Bench consisting of S.S. Byas, J., and one of us (Farooq Hasan J.) at the residence and the Bench ordered as under:- ".....Heard learned Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Dhanker. However, the matter was placed before a Bench consisting of S.S. Byas, J., and one of us (Farooq Hasan J.) at the residence and the Bench ordered as under:- ".....Heard learned Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Dhanker. The order dated 4-8-89 so far it relates to the issuing of arrest warrants against contemnors Shri V. B. L. Mathur CS, Shri R. Rama Krishna, Home Commissioner and Shri S. D. Srivastava, S.S. DOP, is recalled and directions are hereby issued to the D.G.P. Rajasthan Jaipur not to execute the warrants of arrest if no executed so far." On August 7, 1989, again applications were moved for grant of exemption from putting personal appearance on that date which were allowed for August 7, 1989. On August 21, 1989, when the matter came up for consideration of the present contempt petition, Shri Virendra Bandhu, Advocate, moved an application raising objection against appearance of Shri M.I. Khan as a counsel for the respondents. In these circumstances it was considered proper that the objection raised by Shri Bandhu should be decided and the case was ordered to be listed for hearing on the question, whether Mr. M.I. Khan can appear on behalf of the respondents. On August 21, 1989, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 put their appearance before the Bench but, an application was filed by respondent No. 3 for exempting him from putting personal appearance-to which learned counsel for the petitioner strong; opposed. However, the Bench allowed application and respondent No. 3 was granted exemption till the application filed by Shri Bandhu is finally disposed of. Other respondents (No. 1 & 2) were granted exemption from putting appearance till further orders. 31. Presently we are not concerned at this stage with the merits of the contempt petition. We may however, emphasise that a necessary postulate of the rule of law is that the orders passed by a Court should be honoured and respected. A glance to the various order sheets of this Court reveals that the respondent No. 3 despite clear and specific direction to appear in the court has not choosen to present himself even once. Originally, in the order dated August 4, 1989 this Court specifically said, "all this shows that the respondents have no respect whatsoever for the court and they are in habit of disobedience of the order of the court apart from showing contemptuous attitude. Originally, in the order dated August 4, 1989 this Court specifically said, "all this shows that the respondents have no respect whatsoever for the court and they are in habit of disobedience of the order of the court apart from showing contemptuous attitude. In such circumstances, we do not want to pass any order in the absence of the respondents". In these circumstances, we must see that the orders are complied with and the dignity of law is maintained by the contemnors or not, otherwise, that would amount to denigration of the State judiciary. No officer has the right to abuse the Court or to ignore the orders passed by the Court. 32. We must reiterate that on July 4, 1989, this Court directed the respondents to appear in person. On subsequent date, none was present and the Court had exempted appearance for that date only and directed the contemnors to remain present in person on August 4, 1989 but on that date also, they were not present in Court and confronted with this situation, on August 4, 1989, this Court directed to issue warrant of arrest to secure the attendance of the respondents. On August 5, 1989, application was moved for grant of exemption from putting personal appearance and earlier order dated August 4, 1989 was re-called only to the extent that warrant of arrest should not be executed. Again on August 7, 1989 application for exemption from putting personal appearance was submitted which was accepted for that day only. On August 21, 1989 application for exemption from putting personal appearance was moved on behalf of respondent No. 3 which was allowed but in part, and exemption was granted from putting personal appearance to the respondent No. 3 till the application of Shri Bandhu is decided which we have disposed of as indicted above. 33. We asked Mr. Khan to suggest a date on which Shri Mathur can appear before this Court. But, Shri M.I. Khan stressed that first of all applications relating to the exemption to the respondent No. 3 from putting personal appearance and in respect of deletion of his name from the contempt petition should be disposed of. We are not inclined to accept the request of Mr. Khan at this stage. In our opinion, Mr. V.B.L. Mathur should respect the orders of this Court to appear in person before the Court. We are not inclined to accept the request of Mr. Khan at this stage. In our opinion, Mr. V.B.L. Mathur should respect the orders of this Court to appear in person before the Court. We fail to understand as to what prevents Mr. Mathur from appearing in person in the Court even once Having regard to the fact that this Court has given several chances to Mr. Mathur for appearing in the court, Mr. Mathur ought to have respected the orders of the Court. When orders are passed, public interest demands that every one should comply with the same notwithstanding how so high individual may be. Law is supreme and paramount. We hope and expect that the respondent No. 3 will have regards to the orders of the Court. We have granted sufficient exemptions and now the Court must insist on the obedience of its orders. In the words of Thomas Fuller, "Be you ever so high, the law is above you". 34. After dictation of this part, Shri M.I. Khan fairly and frankly conceded that he should be given opportunity to fix up the date with his client and he has suggested that a date after 10th February, 1990 may suit his client. Therefore, it is directed that Shri V.B.L. Mathur (respondent No. 3) should appear in person before this Court on Feb. 12, 1990 instead on January 24, 1990. 35. In the result, the application of Shri Virendra Bandhu stands dismissed as indicated above. And, Shri V.B.L. Mathur is directed to appear in person on February 12, 1990 before this Court in compliance to the Court order dated August 4, 1990.Office to proceed further. *******