VK Khanna, C. J.— This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.8.94 passed in Civil Rule No. 2450 of 1992 filed by Ms Deepali Devi, respondent No. 1 in the present appeal. 2 The aforesaid Civil Rule filed by the petitioner/respondent No. 1 was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the impugned order in the Civil Rule contained in Annexure 10 was quashed, and it was ordered that the petitioner-respondent would resume her duties and she would be entitled to all the benefits as admissible under the Rules. 3. We have heard Mr. NN Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. PG Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 1 and Mr. BC Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondent. 4. The admitted facts for the purpose of adjudicating the present appeal are that admittedly prior to filing of the present Writ Appeal No. 426 of 1994, the appellant filed another Writ Appeal No. (T) 910 of 1994 on 19th September, 1994. On 20th September, 1994, the Stamp Reporter of this Court in the aforesaid earlier Writ Appeal No. (T) 910 of 1994 gave a report to the effect that: "With Caveat No. 581/94 (1) No copy of the impugned order dated 18.8.94. (2) Copy not served on the L/A of the Caveator. (3) Return to L/A." 5. It is surprising -that instead of making good the defects which had been pointed out by the Stamp Reporter in Writ Appeal No. (T) 910 of 1994, the appellant chose to file the present appeal on 28th September, 1994. It may be pertinent to note that before filing the appeal no notice of the appeal was served on the counsel of the Caveator. Of course, along with the present appeal the certified copy of judgment passed by the learned Single Judge had been annexed. The present appeal came up before the Division Bench of this Court on 29.9.94. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr. NN Saikia, the appeal was admitted. As there was a prayer for stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench also heard the stay matter and notice was issued on the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned order should not be stayed as prayed for. NN Saikia, the appeal was admitted. As there was a prayer for stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench also heard the stay matter and notice was issued on the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned order should not be stayed as prayed for. In the meantime, it was ordered that if the petitioner (i.e., appellant herein) was in service she could continue until further orders. 6. The present appeal was heard by a Bench of this Court which passed the following order: "Heard Mr. NN Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. PG Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. I/ petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it has come to our notice that prior to filing of this appeal another appeal which has been registered and numbered as Writ Appeal No. (T) 910 of 1994 was filed on 19.9.94. The Stamp Reporter gave a report on the aforesaid appeal filed on 19.9.94 that a caveat bearing No. 581/94 has also been filed. The other objections which had been noticed were that no copy of the impugned order dated 18.8.94 has been filed and the copy has not been served on the L/A of the Caveator. It has also been noted that it should be returned to L/A. On 23.9.94, one week's time was granted to take steps by Registrar (I&E). On 16.11.94, there is an order that the appeal be put up after one week with Writ Appeal No 426 of 1994. Prima facie, the Registrar (I&E) had granted time for taking steps and it is also clear that the appellant herself knew that the appeal has been filed without a copy of the certified copy of the judgment and was thus clearly a defective appeal. At the time of presentation of the appeal, from the report of the Stamp Reporter, it is prima facie clear that the appellant on the date of the filing of the appeal had every means to know that a caveat had been filed as the Stamp Reporter had even reported that the appeal has been filed without serving a copy on the learned Advocate appearing for the Caveator. The present Writ Appeal No. 426 of 1994 was presented on 28.9.94. The present Writ Appeal No. 426 of 1994 was presented on 28.9.94. It may be noted that the learned Advocate for the appellant has not disputed that this is not an application and is a subsequent second Writ Appeal which has been filed after obtaining the certified copy. In the aforesaid appeal there is no report regarding the filing of Caveat No. 581/94-and the appeal was first numbered as Writ Appeal No. (T) 976/94 which was ultimately numbered as Writ Appeal No. 426 of 1994. This appeal came up for admission before a Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sangma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice SB Roy on 29.9.94. It is clear from the order that the appellant has not brought it to the notice of the Court that any caveat had been filed in this case and the Bench issued notice to the respondents and passed an interim order that in the meantime if the petitioner is in service she can continue until further orders. The judgment of the learned Single Judge has been passed on 17.8.94. The order of stay has been passed by the Bench after nearly one month and 11 days of the passing of the impugned order. The operative portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge indicates that the following directions had been given : "In view of the above, I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Baruah. Accordingly, I allow the petition and set aside the impugned Annexure 10 order. The petitioner shall resume her duties and she shall be entitled to all the benefits as admissible under the Rules." According to the direction given by the learned Single Judge, a mandatory direction has been given that the petitioner shall resume her duties and shall be entitled to all the benefits as admissible under the Rules. The exparte order in this case should have been passed in the presence of the caveator inasmuch as admittedly a caveat had been filed much before the filing of the appeal. Office will therefore put up a report as to under what circumstances the caveat was not reported in the appeal which has now been numbered as Writ Appeal No. 426 of 1994. Office will therefore put up a report as to under what circumstances the caveat was not reported in the appeal which has now been numbered as Writ Appeal No. 426 of 1994. The stay vacating application has been moved by the petitioner-respondent and admittedly a copy of the stay vacating application has been served on the counsel for the appellant on 5.12.94, that is, 14 days prior to hearing of this matter today. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has stated that no reply has been filed to the aforesaid stay vacating application and that he would require at least 10 day's time to file a reply. Looking into the entire nature of the case, it would be necessary to have a personal, affidavit-in-reply filed to the stay vacating application by the appellant herself. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we are however of the opinion that looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the stay order granted by this Court on 29.9.94 is vacated and the prayer of the appellant for granting stay will be considered againg after hearing the counsel for both the parties and this Court will also determine the question as to whether under what circumstances the Stamp Reporter did not report about the filing of a caveat against the same order of the learned Single Judge in this appeal which has now been numbered as Writ Appeal No. 426 of 1994. The appeal will now be listed for admission on 4th January, 1995 along with Writ Appeal No. (T) 910 of 1994. 7. The first question which arises for determination in this case is as to whether on the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, this Court while tearing the appeal by exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should refuse to interfere at the instance of the appellant on the ground that she has not approached the Court with clean hands and has abused the process of the Court. 8. As has been stated above, the earlier Writ Appeal No.(T) 910 of 1994 did indicate, which is clear from the report of the Stamp Reporter, that a Caveat No. 581/94 had been filed and the copy had not been served on the learned Advocate of the Caveator. Mr. 8. As has been stated above, the earlier Writ Appeal No.(T) 910 of 1994 did indicate, which is clear from the report of the Stamp Reporter, that a Caveat No. 581/94 had been filed and the copy had not been served on the learned Advocate of the Caveator. Mr. NN Saikia, counsel appearing for the appellant has tried to urge before us that the appellant had no knowledge of the aforesaid report of the Stamp Reporter. We are however not prepare to believe the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch a prudent person having filed an appeal would definitely pursue the same and would try to know as to what has happened to the appeal which has been filed by him. The appeal has been filed by the appellant for the purposes of getting the order of the learned Single Judge quashed and also obtaining the stay order. It does not stane to reason that the aforesaid appeal would not be pursued and the appellant would not try to know about the defects which have been pointed gut by the Stamp Reporter in the appeal. Further, it was the duty of the appellant to have perused the report of the Stamp Reporter after having submitted the appeal and to have served the copy of the same on the Advocate of the Caveat or. However, a curious procedure has been followed in the present case which according to us cannot be ascribed to any reason except the reason that somehow or the other the Caveator may not be present at the time when the matter comes up before the Court for consideration of the appeal and the stay matter. 9. As we have stated earlier that another appeal against the same order was filed by the appellant through the same counsel. The aforesaid appeal was heard and stay order was obtained from the Court without bringing to the notice of the Court that caveat had been filed. 9. As we have stated earlier that another appeal against the same order was filed by the appellant through the same counsel. The aforesaid appeal was heard and stay order was obtained from the Court without bringing to the notice of the Court that caveat had been filed. In our opinion, on the consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the only conclusion which we can arrive at is that intentionally the appellant had filed the second appeal against the same judgment of the learned Single Judge with a clear intention that the respondent-caveator may not be present at the time of hearing of the appeal and the stay application and that is what precisely has happened in this case. The stay order was obtained by the appellant in these circumstances. Now, in our opinion, it is a gross misuse of the process of the Court and the appellant has not come with clean hands. The materials on record clearly establish that the appellant has abused the process of the Court. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in (1993) 4 SCC 216 , (1993) 4 SCC 317 , (1994) 2 SCC 116 and (1994) 4 SCC 165 . In all these eases, the Apex Court after arriving at a finding that there has been abuse of the process of the Court has refused to exercise its discretion and awarded exemplary cost. 11. The law is well settled that this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere at the instance of a person who does not approach the Court with clean hands and abuses the & process of the Court. We are thus of the opinion that this Court will not interfere and exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at the behest of such a person who has abused the process of the Court. 12. The next question which falls for our consideration is that considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case what exemplary cost should be awarded to be paid by the appellant and to whom. 12. The next question which falls for our consideration is that considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case what exemplary cost should be awarded to be paid by the appellant and to whom. As far as the contesting respondent No. 1 is concerned, under the order of the learned Single Judge she shall be entitled to be reinstated on the post with immediate effect and she was made entitled to all the benefits in accordance with the Rules. The contesting respondent No. 1 will thus be gelling all those benefits. We are thus of the opinion that the appellant is liable to pay exemplary cost which we assess at Rs 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand) only. However on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid cost of Rs.2,000/- will be paid to the State Legal Aid Board within a period of one month from today so that the aforesaid amount can be utilized for the purposes of the needy litigants. 12 A. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is dismissed.