CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THE instant writ petition is registered when the Land reforms Appellate Authority, Udupi was abolished and appeal in No. L. R. A. 1654 of 1988 stood transferred to this Court. A c. P. in No. 544 of 1990 was filed before this Court to cau for the records in the appeal and to treat the same as writ petition. On receipt of the case records in the appeal, the same is now in the form of a writ petition before this Court. ( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Gopal Hegde and the learned Counsel Sri Manohar for M/s. Shetty and hegde Associates, for the respondent 1 and the learned government Pleader Sri S. S. Guttal, for the respondents 2 and 3. ( 3 ) THIS writ petition is directed as against the interim order of the Land Tribunal dated 28-10-1988, whereby the respondent 2-Land Tribunal, while dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Section 48-C of the Land Reforms Act to permit the petitioner to enter into the subject lands by an injunction order or in the alternative to appoint a receiver for management of the subject lands, directed the respondent 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 250/- as security deposit before the respondent 2-Land Tribunal before commencement of the 'karthika' cultivation. ( 4 ) THE above said application was opposed by the respondent-1, the tenant before the Land Tribunal. He filed his objection statement as against the LA. and denied the allegations in the said application. He had contended therein that the subject lands are under his cultivation for sufficiently long time and that he is poor and having a large family to support and that the petitioner herein had. filed the said application only to harass him and that there are no bona fides in resorting to the same. ( 5 ) THE respondent 2-Land Tribunal while passing the impugned order observed that the enquiry in question had already commenced as per the direction of this Court in a writ petition filed by the respondent 1 earlier and therefore, it was not proper for it to grant either of the prayers in the application. However, while so rejecting the LA. of the petitioner, the Land tribunal directed the respondent 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. However, while so rejecting the LA. of the petitioner, the Land tribunal directed the respondent 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 250/- as security deposit every year before the commencement of the 'karthika' cultivation. ( 6 ) THE main grievance as made out in his argument by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hegde is that, while the la. of the petitioner was rejected, the Land Tribunal directed the respondent 1 to deposit a paltry sum of Rs. 250/- per year as security deposit, while this Court in a similar situation in writ proceedings between the very parties earlier, had directed the respondent 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 750/- as security deposit for a period and that the Land Tribunal again thereafter also in a similar situation directed the respondent 1 to deposit a sum of rs. 500/- as security deposit. He therefore submitted that the least the Land Tribunal would have done in the circumstances is to direct the respondent 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 750/- as security deposit as directed by this Court. He further pointed out that the respondent 1 had not even complied with the direction in the impugned order to deposit Rs. 250/- per year. Therefore he prayed that this Court may be pleased to modify the order either by appointing a Receiver or in the alternative by directing the respondent 1 to deposit either Rs. 750/- per year as directed by this Court or Rs. 500/- as directed by the Land Tribunal subsequently by an order thereto in similar situations as stated above. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent 1-Sri Manohar while supporting the order passed by the Land Tribunal had pleaded that the respondent 1 is a poor tenant living hands to mouth. He further reiterated the contentions in the objection statement filed by the respondent 1 before the Land Tribunal as against the LA. in question. He had argued that the instant LA. is filed by the petitioner only to harass the respondent 1, that the petitioner is very comfortably placed in life and that the deposit or no deposit by way of security deposit is of no consequences to her, more so when the matter before the Land tribunal is at the final stage and the deposit even if made will be lying in deposit before the respondent 2-Land Tribunal. Therefore, he prayed that the petition be dismissed. ( 8 ) IN this context, I asked the learned Counsel for the respondent 1 whether it is true that the respondent 1 had not deposited even Rs. 250/- as directed by the respondent 2-Land tribunal by passing the impugned order. The learned Counsel fairly admitted that the same was in fact not deposited by the respondent 1, but the reason he had assigned for such a non-compliance is the poverty conditions of the respondent 1 and his family. But the conduct of the respondent 1 therein is not appreciable at all for, he would have either complied with the order or in the alternative challenged the same before this Court for modification. At any stretch of imagination, silence on his part cannot be an answer anyway, as if he can eat as well as save at the same time. All the more, there should be sanctity for the order passed by the Land Tribunal, a quasi-judicial authority, and flouting thereof is not only despicable and abhorred, but to be seriously viewed. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, it is the duty of this Court to see that the order of Courts or quasi-judicial authorities are obeyed with all respect, no matter whether the order is good, bad, cryptic or for that matter, non-speaking; order is an order and contempt as against an order is not judicially tolerable. ( 9 ) I have carefully considered the submissions and counter-submissions made by the respective sides as above. I have also perused the records pertaining to the case, more particularly, the LA. filed by the petitioner for the injunctive relief or appointment of a receiver in the alternative and the objection statement filed by the respondent 1 thereto and further the proceedings of the Land Tribunal pertaining to the LA. in question. ( 10 ) IT is relevant to mention here that this Court in a similar situation admittedly had directed the respondent 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 750/- in a writ proceeding between the very same parties and that the Land Tribunal thereafter (on an earlier occasion) in the very same tenancy proceedings had directed the respondent 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- and the same was deposited by the respondent 1 in a particular year in compliance thereof. 750/- in a writ proceeding between the very same parties and that the Land Tribunal thereafter (on an earlier occasion) in the very same tenancy proceedings had directed the respondent 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- and the same was deposited by the respondent 1 in a particular year in compliance thereof. ( 11 ) THAT being the position, it appears to me that, the least the Land Tribunal would have done in the facts and circumstances of the case is to direct the respondent 1 to deposit that minimum sum of Rs. 500/- while rejecting the LA. No. 1 of the petitioner, instead of fixing that amount at that low sum of rs. 250/- as security deposit. It appears further to me that the land Tribunal should have adopted more practical and realistic approach to situations. If the Land Tribunal would have been so, probably it would have fixed the security deposit at least at Rs. 500/- per year as it had done in an earlier occasion as stated above. To my mind it also appears that the grievance of the petitioner in resorting to the instant writ petition is more against the respondent 2-Land Tribunal than against the respondent 1 for the aforesaid reasons. ( 12 ) IN the facts and circumstances, therefore, I am convinced that it is in fitness of things that a sum of Rs. 500/- be fixed by this Court as the security deposit to be deposited by the respondent 1 before the respondent 2-Land Tribunal pending disposal of the case before it; more so when the petitioner herein had not challenged such an order of the Land Tribunal in an earlier occasion and that the respondent 1 had also complied with such an order to deposit the said sum earlier as stated above. ( 13 ) IN the result, the impugned order of the respondent 2-Land Tribunal is quashed in so far as the same related to the direction by it to the respondent 1 to deposit Rs. 250/- as security deposit. In modification thereof, the respondent 1 is hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs. ( 13 ) IN the result, the impugned order of the respondent 2-Land Tribunal is quashed in so far as the same related to the direction by it to the respondent 1 to deposit Rs. 250/- as security deposit. In modification thereof, the respondent 1 is hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- as security deposit before the respondent 2-Land Tribunal, from the date of application i. e. 3-7-1988 and to date and hence forth every year before the commencement of the 'karthika' cultivation pending disposal of the tenancy proceedings now pending on the file of the respondent 2. The respondent 1 is further directed to deposit all that sum due at that rate of Rs. 500/- per year from the date of the LA. of the petitioner i. e. , 3-7-1988 and to date within three months from this date before the respondent 2-Land Tribunal, failing which, the petitioner is at liberty to move the Land tribunal for appointment of a Receiver for management of the subject lands in the tenancy proceedings. ( 14 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed, in part. The rule made absolute to that extent. ( 15 ) IN view of the above order, office is directed to return the original records of the Tribunal, now on the case file of this court to the Land Tribunal, Udupi, Dakshina Kannada District, early but after the expiry of the appeal time. The office is also directed to send copy of this order to the respondent 2-Land Tribunal for information and for the needful immediately. --- *** --- .