K. M. YUSUF, J. ( 1 ) THIS Contempt Rule was issued on 20th May, 1983 by Mr. Justice G. N. Ray for violating the Court's Order dated 2nd August, 1982. His Lordship released the matter from his list and it was assigned to Mr. Justice M. K. Mukherjee and His Lordship too was not inclined to take up the matter on personal ground and ultimately the Hon'ble the Chief Justice assigned the matter to me on 26th April, 1990. ( 2 ) ON 11th May, 1990 it was detected that one Sri Animesh Ranjan Dutta, Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal Tribal Development Co-operative Corporation, Contemner No. 3, filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition duly affirmed on 16th March, 1987 on his behalf and on behalf of the Contemners Nos. 1 and 2. On that date I passed the order accepting the Affidavit-in-Opposition so far as the Contemner No. 3 was concerned and rejected the Affidavit-in-Opposition so far as the Contemners Nos. 1 and 2 were concerned as the Contemner No. 3 filed the Affidavit on behalf of the said Contemners as duly authorised by them. I further made observation that in a Contempt Rule Affidavit-in-Opposition must be filed by each and every Contemner and it cannot be filed by anybody else as the contempt is against the person concerned. ( 3 ) ON 1st June, 1990 when the matter was taken up for further hearing the learned Advocate for the Contemners, Mr. J. Chakraborty, cited a decision by Mr. Justice A. K. Janah (as His Lordship then was) and certain Rules of the Contempt of Court Act to bring home the point that a Contemner can file Affidavit on behalf of other Contemners as well. As such I adjourned the matter so that an order dealing with the legal aspect of the point raised might be passed. ( 4 ) MR. Chakraborty cited the decision in the case of Berhampore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors. , reported in 1980 (1) C. L. J. 528 as well as Rules 9 and 30 of the Calcutta High Court Contempt of Court's Rules, 1975. In the aforesaid case the Court declined to accept the argument of Mr. Chakraborty cited the decision in the case of Berhampore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors. , reported in 1980 (1) C. L. J. 528 as well as Rules 9 and 30 of the Calcutta High Court Contempt of Court's Rules, 1975. In the aforesaid case the Court declined to accept the argument of Mr. Nigam Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the petitioner, that in a Contempt Rule all the Contemners must file separate Affidavits and unless that was done there was no proper return to the Rule and the Rule must be made absolute on that ground alone. The learned Judge held that the form in which a Contempt Rule was issued shows that the Contemners were required to appear personally but as far as the filing of Affidavit was concerned there was nothing which require the Contemners to file separate Affidavits personally. He further held that such Affidavit could be filed like all other Affidavits required to be filed before the Court and further stated that Rules 9 and 30 of the Contempt of Court's Rules, 1975 framed by the Calcutta High Court clearly indicated that an Affidavit could be affirmed by a person other than respondent concerned if that person was competent to affirm such Affidavit. ( 5 ) I am afraid I cannot endorse the views expressed in the aforesaid decision on the strength of a Division Bench decision of our High Court reported in AIR 1952 Cal. 919 (Tarafatullah Mandal and Ors. v. S. N. Maitra and others) where the learned Judges, none else than Chakravartti and P. B. Mukharji JJ. , in two different but concurring judgments held that a proceeding in contempt was by its nature a proceeding in personam and a contempt proceeding, therefore, could not be allowed to acquire the character of a representative proceeding. In a similar decision a Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court in the case of Wasudeoraoji Sheorey v. A. D. Mani (AIR 1951 Nagpur 26) held that when an alleged contemner did not deny On Affidavit an allegation made by the applicant, he ran the risk of the applicant's statement being accepted and acted upon. ( 6 ) MR. In a similar decision a Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court in the case of Wasudeoraoji Sheorey v. A. D. Mani (AIR 1951 Nagpur 26) held that when an alleged contemner did not deny On Affidavit an allegation made by the applicant, he ran the risk of the applicant's statement being accepted and acted upon. ( 6 ) MR. Justice Janah (as His Lordship then was) made much emphasis on Rules 9 and 30 of the Calcutta High Court Contempt of Court's Rules, 1975 but I find nothing contrary to the views expressed by the above two decisions of the High Courts in the said Rules 9 and 30. Rule 9 clearly relates to the petitioner of the contempt application and Rule 30 simply outlines the procedures of drawing up the Affidavit and does not in any way refer or indicate that an Affidavit can be affirmed by a person other than the Contemner if that person is competent to affirm such Affidavit. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, I am bound to follow the decisions of the Division Bench of our High Court as well as of the Nagpur High Court as referred to above and I reject the contention of Mr. J. Chakraborty for the Contemners. ( 8 ) I, accordingly, hold that in a contempt proceeding each and every Contemner shall have to file Affidavit-in-opposition positively and no Contemner can delegate the power to any other Contemner or person to affirm the Affidavit-in-Opposition or any other application on his or her behalf. The order passed by me on 11th May, 1990 stands. Legal point answered against the contemners,