JUDGMENT 1. - The facts giving rise to this contempt petition under Section 12 Qf the Con- tempt of Courts Act are as under: The petitioner-applicant Bhana Ram was elected as a Sarpanch from Gram Panchayat, Mei, Panchayat Samiti, Danta Ramgarh (Sikar) on 1.6.1988. The Government issued an order dated 11.6.1990 (Annexure-1) suspending the petitioner-applicant and directing him to hand over the charge of the office of Sarpanch to UpSarpanch. He filed a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2490/90 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging his suspension vide Annexure-1 on the grounds mentioned therein. Along with the writ petition, a stay application praying that during the pendency of the writ petition the operation of Annexure-1 be stayed and the respondents be restrained from interfering in the work of the petitioner as Sarpanch was also filed. The writ petition came up for hearing before this court on 26.6.1990 when it was directed that notice thereof be issued to the respondents. The following order was passed on that date on the stay application moved along with the writ petition : "Issue notice returnable by 3rd July. Notices be given 'Dasti', as prayed. In the meanwhile, if the suspension has not taken effect already, the operation of the order dated 11.6.1990 (Annexure-1) is stayed." 2. This petition was filed by the petitioner applicant Bhana Ram in this court on 21.10.1990 stating that Shri Pradeep Sen, District Collector (Panchayat), Sikar and Dr. M.L. Gupta, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar (the respondent) had intentionally an knowingly dis-obeyed the order dated 26.6.1990 passed by this court and the charge of Sarpanch was assumed by Up-Sarpanch Shri Rekha Ram and that the members of the Gram Panchayat had moved "No Confidence Motion" against the UpSarpanch on 10.8.1990 and he stood removed from the said post and the respondents had tried that the charge of the post of the Sarpanch should be assumed by a Panch. It *as stated that they have intentionally dis-obyed the said order issued by this court and had committed contempt of this court and it has been prayed that the be punished and be directed not to hand over the charge of the post of Sarpanch to any Panch and to allow the petitioner- applicant to work as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mei. The petition has been opposed by the respondents. 3. The petition has been opposed by the respondents. 3. In their replies, the respondents have denied that they have violated the order passed by this court or committed its contempt in any way and it has been submitted that the suspension order dated 11.6.1990 had been served on the petitioner-applicant on 12.6.1990 and charge of the post of Sarpanch had been taken from him on 22.6.1990 and that the suspension order had taken effect before the writ petition was filed by the petitioner-applicant in this court has been admitted by the petitioner-applicant in this court as has been admitted by the petitioner in his letter dated 27.6.1990 (Annexure-R-1). It has been submitted that this contempt petition has been filed malafide and with ulterior motive. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 5. In is not disputed before me that letter dated 27.6.1990 (Annexure-R-1) was written by the petitioner-applicant to the District Collector, Siakr. In this letter it has been stated that the petitioner had been duly elected as the Sarpanch on 1.6.1988 and was surprised to find that he had been suspended vide order dated 11.6.1990 passed by the State Government, but did not know the charges against him and thereafter he had filed the writ petition in this court where interim order has been passed on 26.6.1990. This clearly shows that the order of suspension had been served on the petitioner-applicant before he filed the writ petition. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner- applicant that while taking charge of the post of Sarpanch from the petitioner-applicant the respondents had not followed the procedure prescribed under the Panchayat Raj Act (the Act) and, as such, it cannot be said that charge of the post of Sarpanch had been taken from him and that the respondents not having allowed the petitioner-applicant to work as Sarpanch had committed the contempt of this court. In my view this argument is without any substance. The order of suspension dated 11.6.1990 was admittedly received by the petitioner on 12.6.1990 i.e. long before he filed this writ petition in this court on 22.6.1990. The order of suspension takes effect immediately on its being issued and, in this case, the order of suspension having been served on the petitioner on 12.6.1990, he knew that he had been placed under suspension. The order of suspension takes effect immediately on its being issued and, in this case, the order of suspension having been served on the petitioner on 12.6.1990, he knew that he had been placed under suspension. The taking of charge is only a consequence of the order of suspension and even if it be assumed that while taking charge from the petitioner-applicant the procedure prescribed under the Act had not been followed, it cannot be said; by any stretch of imagination, that the order in question had not taken effect. The stay order was clear that if the order had not taken effect it would remain stayed. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the stay order in any way or have committed the contempt of this court. In view of the fact that the petitioner-applicant knew that the order of suspension had already taken effect this petition cannot be said to be bonafide. 6. It cannot be disputed that in a democratic set-up it is necessary that no one should be allowed to violate the orders passed by the courts but it is equally important that the courts should see that nobody is allowed to abuse the process of the court to harass anyone. In this case, the petitioners has not only tried to harass the respondents by unnecessary dragging them to this court but has also deprived the State from the services of the respondents during the time that they remained away from their offices to attend this court in person. 7. In this view of the matter while dismissing this contempt petition, I impose the cost of Rs. 1000/on the petitioner- applicant.Contempt petition dismissed with costs. *******