S. P. BHARUCHA, J. ( 1 ) THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGES THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF THE order OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 23rd NOVEMBER, 1990, WHEREBY THE respondent WAS DIRECTED TO RECONSIDER THE COMPLAINANT's REFUND CLAIM IN THE LIGHT OF a CERTAIN ORDER MADE BY CEGAT AND MAKE AN ORDER THEREON WITHIN FOUR WEEKS FROM the DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE DIRECTIONS. THE ORDER ON THE REFUND APPLICATIONS WAS MADE on 17th FEBRUARY, 1992 BY THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS. IT WAS MADE PURSUANT to AN ORDER DATED 12th FEBRUARY, 1992 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT MAKING AN adjudication, ALLEGEDLY IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF CEGAT AFOREMENTIONED. IN THE process OF MAKING THE ORDER DATED 12th FEBRUARY, 1992, THE RESPONDENT SAID THUS:"in SUCH A SITUATION AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONTEMPT PETITION FILED IN REGARD to THEIR REFUND CLAIM WHICH IS TO BE CONSIDERED AFTER READJUDICATION BASED ON quantification, OF THIS CASE AS PER HON'ble HIGH COURTS' ORDERS, I AM INCLINED TO confirm THE DEMAND MADE IN THEIR EARLIER SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30-12-1985 within THE LIMITED TIME MADE AVAILABLE TO ME. ACCORDINGLY, I CONFIRM THE ORIGINAL demand FOR RS. 1,15,70,798-51 MADE IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30-12-1985. " ( 2 ) IN OUR VIEW, THE COMPLAINANT MUST CHALLENGE IN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS THE ORDERS OF 12th AND 17th FEBRUARY, 1992. HOWEVER, WE DO FIND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS not OBEYED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THAT, (I) HE HAS NOT MADE AN ORDER on THE REFUND APPLICATIONS; AND (TI) HE HAS NOT DONE SO WITHIN THE TIME GRANTED TO HIM. ( 3 ) IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT THAT THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TONUKE ORDERS ON REFUND APPLICATIONS IS NOT THE RESPONDENT. IF THAT WERE SO, THE CORRECT position SHOULD HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT TO THE LEARNED JUDGE EITHER WHEN HE MADE THE order OR AT SOME SUBSEQUENT TIME UPON AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. SINCE THE ORDER directed THE RESPONDENT TO MAKE THE ORDER ON THE REFUND APPLICATIONS, HE IS IN BREACH of THE ORDER IN THAT BE HAS NOT DONE SO. ( 4 ) IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE HAD BEEN CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIESBY REASON OF WHICH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED JUDGE COULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT WITHIN THE time STATED. AN ORDER OF THE COURT CANNOT BE VARIED OR MODIFIED BY THE PARTIES themselves. ( 4 ) IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE HAD BEEN CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIESBY REASON OF WHICH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED JUDGE COULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT WITHIN THE time STATED. AN ORDER OF THE COURT CANNOT BE VARIED OR MODIFIED BY THE PARTIES themselves. IF THE PARTIES OR ANY ONE OF THEM DESIRES MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER, IT IS obliged TO APPLY TO THE COURT IN THAT BEHALF. IN FACT, WE ARE TOLD THAT AT SOME POINT OF time, THE RESPONDENT HAD MADE SUCH AN APPLICATION TO COURT BUT, FUR SOME unexplained REASON, IT DID NOT REACH HEARING AND NO ORDER WAS MADE THEREON. THE complainant SAYS HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH APPLICATION. THE RESPONDENT MUST, therefore, BE HELD TO BE IN BREACH OF THE LEARNED JUDGE's ORDER EVEN IN SO FAR AS HE DID not COMPLY WITH IT WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED. ( 5 ) WE HAVE QUOTED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE RESPONDENT IN HIS ORDER. HE REFERS TO "the LIMITED TIME MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM". IT IS TRUE THAT THE COURT GAVE HIM FOUR weeks' TIME BUT HE FORGETS THAT HE TOOK ALMOST 11 MONTHS. IN ANY EVENT, HE HAS IN THIS behalf TENDERED AN AFFIDAVIT CONTAINING AN UNCONDITIONAL AND UNQUALIFIED APOLOGY, which WE ACCEPT. ( 6 ) FOR THE OTHER BREACHES AFOREMENTIONED, WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO LAKE PENAL ACTION, BUT WE RECORD OUR DISAPPROVAL. ( 7 ) THE RESPONDENT SHALL PAY TO THE COMPLAINANT COSTS QUANTIFIED AT RS. 1000/- ORDER ON THE CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE ACCORDINGLY. --- *** --- .