Honble MATHUR, J.–By this petition, the petitioner Smt. Har Pyari has complained of interference in the administration of justice by the first respondent Shri V. Sriniwasan, Collector, Jodhpur and respondent Nos. 5 & 6 officers of the Oil & Natural Gas Commission viz Smt. Anita Takroo and Shri Idu Khan regarding the order dated 2nd July, 1997 passed by the S.D.O., Jodhpur. It is prayed that the said respondents be adequately punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (2). This court by order dated 12.8.99 issued a show cause notice to the respondents as to why the contempt proceedings be not initiated. The first respondent and the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have filed a separate reply. (3). All the answering respondents in their respective reply at the outset have submitted that they have full faith in the judicial system and they never intended to interfere with the courts proceedings. The first respondent has said that the site was inspected on 24th July, 1999 keeping in mind the apprehensions of disturbances in the peace as there were cross cases and rivalry between the parties with respect to the disputed land. He has also referred the order of the Board of Revenue staying the order of S.D.O., Jodhpur dated 02.07.99. The respondents No. 5 & 6 have given details of the litigation and submitted that the present application by Smt. Har Pyari is nothing but abuse of the process of court. The prayer has been made to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner. Per contra Mr. N.S. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited our attention to the contents of para 2 & 3 of the affidavit filed by Idu Khan and submitted that the contents constitute an offence of contempt. Before we proceed further, Mr. Idu Khan has withdrawn the offending contents of para 2 and 3 by filing supplementary affidavit, as follows:- ``that I hereby unconditionally withdraw the first four lines of para 3, likewise I also unconditionally withdraw the words and the respondent No. 2 (which post is presently occupied by Shri Hamant Kumar Gaira)" in the relief clause of the said additional submissions. That in addition to the above in the entire set of pleadings of the answering respondents, whereby any such allegation may have happened to be made against respondent No. 2 are all hereby withdrawn unconditionally." (4). That in addition to the above in the entire set of pleadings of the answering respondents, whereby any such allegation may have happened to be made against respondent No. 2 are all hereby withdrawn unconditionally." (4). Thus, the off shoot contention of Mr. Acharya is not required to be examined. (5). A preliminary objection has also been raised that the present application at the instance of the private party, without the consent of the Advocate General, is not maintainable in view of the mandatory provisions of Sec. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. There is substance in the preliminary objection. Mr. N.S. Acharya promptly submits that this court has power to suo- moto initiate contempt proceedings. (6). Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the respondents have expressed their firm faith in the judicial system and assured that they never intended to interfere with the courts proceedings and further fact that the letter dated 7.8.99 has been withdrawn, we do not consider it to be a fit case to suo-moto initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. (7). However, before parting with we would like to remind all the authorities judicial or executive, exercising administrative powers the observations of this court rendered in S.B. Cr. Reference No. 223/69 in State of Rajasthan vs. Shika decided on 25.8.69 as follows: ``In dealing with any case before it a criminal court or indeed any court for that matter is not at all bound in its judicial sphere by the administrative instructions or directions that any superior authority might issue. Such instructions could only be in the nature of general guidance and the idea could only be to point out the defects of the subordinate officer of which he may not be aware and on his being so made aware it is expected of him that he will be applying himself more diligently to the work to be dealt with by him and will study the law better. Such instructions or directions could never be permitted to fetter the discretion given to a court under the law. The judicial independence of a court has to be zealously guarded and cannot be permitted to be impaired by executive instructions. Such instructions or directions could never be permitted to fetter the discretion given to a court under the law. The judicial independence of a court has to be zealously guarded and cannot be permitted to be impaired by executive instructions. A court has to exercise its discretion conferred by law judicially according to the well established principles as laid down in various cases of the Supreme Court, this court and the other High Court. (8). The court dealing with the instructions issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the learned Magistrate fettering his judicial discretion, observed as follows: ``However, I cannot approve of the learned Additional Sessions Judge taking upon himself the task of writing such letters to the learned Magistrate. He has referred to rule 4 of the General Rules (Civil) forgetting altogether that those rules apply only to civil work. The position regarding criminal work is governed by the Criminal Procedure Code and the General Rules (Criminal), 1952. It is Section 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which governs the relationship of Magistrates and Sessions Judges. Sub-Section (5) of Sec. 17 lays down that neither the District magistrate nor the Magistrate or Benches appointed or constituted under sections 12,13 14 & 15 shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge except to the extent and in the manner hereinafter expressly provided. Such subordination only in the Judicial sphere, namely, under the sections relating to appeal and revision, issuing of such general instructions by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dholpur to the learned Magistrate were, therefore, singularly inept and cannot be counteranced. The learned Munsif Magistrate is undoubtedly under the administrative control of this Court, but that is by virtue of the constitutional provision. The learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Dholpur does not appear to have been asked by this court to issue the directions of this type to the learned Munsiff Magistrate. Therefore, while in his judicial sphere the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dholpur may deal with orders of the learned Munsiff Magistrate according to law, he cannot issue such general directions to the learned Munsiff Magistrate in the administrative sphere. The learned Magistrate should ignore these directions while dealing with cases before him. However, he has to exercise his discretion judicially and on sound lines according to the cases of this court and the Supreme Court". (9). The learned Magistrate should ignore these directions while dealing with cases before him. However, he has to exercise his discretion judicially and on sound lines according to the cases of this court and the Supreme Court". (9). Though the aforesaid observations has been made, in connection with the judicial proceedings pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate but they equally applies to the proceedings before the revenue courts as well. In the facts of the case, we decline to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent. Petition dismissed. Notice discharged.