Judgment B.C.BASAK, J. 1. This is one of the examples of the various cases where the orders of the Court are totally ignored by the Officers of the Government. This is a case for proceeding in contempt against the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, for violation of the order, this Court passed on 1-11-1989, By the said order this Court allowed the writ petition and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, who is the contemner respondent herein, was directed to pass appropriate order after complying with the proviso of Section 7 (1) o f the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. It was expected that the same should have been disposed of within a reasonable time but it was not so done. Accordingly, this contempt application was filed on 20-2-1992. On 9th March, 1992, we directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, the contemner respondent herein to produce all the records in this Court to show whether the order dated 1st November, 1983, was complied with or not. Today an affidavit is sought to be affirmed stating that such order in compliance was passed on 4th March, 1992. There is nothing to show that such order was in fact passed on 4th March, 1992, and not later because it was not communicated to the petitioner. The only explanation sought to be given is that stated in paragraphs 5, 6 and 8 of the petition. Tht Deputy Commissioner who has appeared before us in person has submitted that because of "pressing law and order problem" he could not deal with the matter earlier. It should be pointed out that he had taken over charge as long back as on 4th June, 1930. Therefore, even after his taking over charge one and half year had expired but until this contempt application was filed, he had not complied with the Courts order. His explanation as above is rejected by us because such explanation is not acceptable to any (sic) followed immediately. We have looked into the records of the case. It appears that excepting for a limited period when the petitioner asked for aajournment, the main reason why it was not complied with was because of the Deputy Commissioner concerned did not think it fit to dispose of this matter earlier. We have looked into the records of the case. It appears that excepting for a limited period when the petitioner asked for aajournment, the main reason why it was not complied with was because of the Deputy Commissioner concerned did not think it fit to dispose of this matter earlier. The Deputy Commissioner may be a very important person in the Administration having various important executive duties but in any view of the matter, an order of this Court is to be complied with without delay. 2. We find that he has wilfully violated the order of the Court. However, he has stated that this is the first time that contempt proceeding for violation of order has been taken against him we pass the following orders : We administer a severe warning to the contemner respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. If he is not careful in future, so far as Courts orders are concerned, he shall not be let off so easily next time. He must not give undue preference to the administrative matters by ignoring Courts sioner, Rachi. If he is not careful in future, so far as Courts orders are orders. If he is not in a position to cope with his duties then such power under the Act is to be conferred on some one else. 3. We dispose of the contempt application by administering such severe warning to the contemner respondent as above. In order to show our displeasure we also award cost assessed as Rs. 500/- to be paid to the petitioners by 31st March, 1992. 4. Let the order sheet of the proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner be returned to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, after each page of the order sheet is initialled, sealed and stamped by the Bench Clerk. 5. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, by the Joint Registrar, Ranchi.