JUDGMENT - J.N. PATEL, J.:---Rule. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks an order to quash and set aside the rejection of his application by the respondent-State to commute his sentence with further directions to the respondent No. 1 to hear the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner also seeks appropriate action against the respondent No. 1 for the breach of the orders passed by this Court, in addition to other ancillary reliefs. 3. The petitioner along with his two sons, was convicted for having committed offence under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for having violated the Kerosene Restriction Order, 1966, and were sentenced to suffer R.I. or three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month, on the accusation that when the shop of the petitioner was raided, a large quantity of Kerosene (200 litres) was found meant for adultering turpentine oil. The petitioner was present in the shop and his two sons were seen mixing Kerosene with turpentine oil and filing the mixture in bottles. The petitioner and his two sons challenged their conviction and sentence before the High Court as well as a special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court. In Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1994 (in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 390 of 1994), filed by the petitioner and his two sons, the Supreme Court by its order dated 23rd September, 1994, granted leave and allowed the appeal preferred by the two sons of the petitioner who were accused Nos. 2 and 3, by giving them benefit of doubt and set aside their conviction and sentence and acquitted them of the charges. Insofar as the petitioner was concerned, the charges against him were held to be proved. His sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment, however, was converted to one of simple imprisonment for the same period. The imposition of fine, was maintained. The Supreme Court modified the sentence of the petitioner from rigorous imprisonment to simple one in order to facilitate him to move the State Government for commutation of his sentence into fine under Clause (d) of section 433 Cr.P.C. and granted him a period of one month to do so and the warrant of arrest against the petitioner was ordered to be suspended for one month. 4. 4. The petitioner moved an application for commutation of sentence of simple imprisonment to fine, but the State Government, by its order dated 24-12-1994, rejected the same. The petitioner impugned the said rejection by filing Misc. Criminal Application No. 1362 of 1994. This Court, by its order dated 1-12-1994, held that the order passed by the respondent/State Government was vitiated as the order was passed without compliance of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not heard by the State Government before rejecting his application and directed the respondent/State Government to grant opportunity to the petitioner of being heard before passing the order against the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed a fresh application on 26-12-1995 for commutation of the sentence, which also came to be rejected by the State Government by its order dated 29-6-1996. The petitioner challenged this order, by filing Criminal Application No. 938 of 1996 and by the order dated 8th September, 1997, this Court allowed the application and passed the following order : "In the result, the petition succeeds, in part. The order dated 29-6-1996 passed by the State Government at Annexure 'G' is quashed and set aside. The respondent-State Government is directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on his application dated 26-12-1995 and to decide the same in accordance with the law and in case the State Government again decides to reject the same, to disclose the reasons for doing so. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs." 5. It appears that on 24-4-1998, Police came to the shop of the petitioner and took the petitioner to Police Station, City Kotwali, Akola, where he was informed that he was under arrest and the petitioner was taken to District Jail, Akola, but as there was no warrant of commitment, the Jailor refused to admit the petitioner in District Jail, on which the petitioner was produced before the Court of Special Judge and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola and the respondent/State prayed for warrant to put the petitioner in Jail. The petitioner pointed out to the Court that in the light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as well as this Court, there was no propriety in arresting the petitioner as long as the final orders are not passed by the State Government. The petitioner pointed out to the Court that in the light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as well as this Court, there was no propriety in arresting the petitioner as long as the final orders are not passed by the State Government. The Special Judge and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola granted 15 days' time to the petitioner to bring the orders from the State Government and, directed him to surrender suo motu in the event of failure to bring such orders and further directed the petitioner to furnish solvent surety of Rs. 3,000/- and execute personal bond of like amount and not to leave Akola without prior permission of Court, curtailing the rights of equality before law and personal liberty of the petitioner enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. On this, the petitioner once again approached this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 125 of 1998. On 6-5-1998, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn. As the petitioner could not get any relief, he again moved this Court by filing Criminal Application No. 902 of 1998 on which this Court, by its order dated 12-6-1998 made it clear that so long as the appeal pends before the State Government, the liability to surrender to sentence does not arise and thereafter on 8-7-1998, the petitioner was communicated the order rejecting his application for commutation of sentence and directing him to undergo the remaining sentence of imprisonment, which led to the filing of this petition. On 5-8-1998, the Court issued notice before admission returnable within three weeks, in the meantime, interim stay in terms of prayer Clause (v) was granted, restraining the respondent No. 2 from arresting the petitioner till further appropriate orders are passed during the pendency of the petition. Before 5-8-1998, when the said interim order was passed, the petitioner had already surrendered on 3-8-1998 and after undergoing the sentence, came to be released on 2-11-1998. The petitioner also paid the fine as ordered on 26-10-1998. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that impugned order communicated by the respondent No. 1 by the letter dated 8-7-1998 informing him that his request for conversion of sentence of imprisonment into sentence of fine, has been rejected, came to be passed without hearing the petitioner and does not assign any reason whatsoever for the rejection. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that impugned order communicated by the respondent No. 1 by the letter dated 8-7-1998 informing him that his request for conversion of sentence of imprisonment into sentence of fine, has been rejected, came to be passed without hearing the petitioner and does not assign any reason whatsoever for the rejection. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court to quash and set aside the said order on the ground that the respondent/State Government, although aware of the orders passed by this Court to grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on his application dated 26-12-1995 and to decide the same in accordance with law and in case the State again decides to reject the same, to disclose the reasons for the same failed to do so and therefore, the respondent/State has failed to comply with the directions of this Court. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent-State violates the principles of natural justice, which calls for interference by this Court. It is further contended by the petitioner that the action taken by the respondent-State is tended with malice, which amount to arbitrariness and against the principles of rule of law and the impugned action on the part of the respondent-State is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended by the petitioner that as the respondent/State has flouted the directions issued by this Court and has again rejected the request of the petitioner to hear him, it shows that the respondent/State has acted in complete disregard to the order passed by this Court and, therefore, the order is not only arbitrary and illegal, but also contemptuous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. At the time of hearing of the petition, the attention of the Court was drawn to the fact that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence and, therefore, the relief as regards the quashing and setting aside the order dated 8-7-1998 would be futile and as the said order has been passed in contravention of the directions of this Court and without following the rules of natural justice, the petitioner is entitled for compensation and for the relief of taking appropriate action against the respondent No. 1 for the breach of the orders passed by this Court. The petitioner also came up with the case that inspite of the fact that the sentence of imprisonment awarded in case of the petitioner was simple in nature, the Jail authorities have forced the petitioner to work and thereby made the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for which also action should be taken against the respondent/State. 8. The respondent/State of Maharashtra, in their reply, contended that pursuant to the judgment and order dated 23-9-1994 in S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 230 of 1994, the petitioner submitted his application on 14-10-1994 for commutation of sentence, which was rejected by the letter dated 24-10-1994. Thereafter the petitioner moved the High Court vide Criminal Application No. 1362 of 1994, which directed the respondent/State of Maharashtra to decide the matter by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Minister (Home) in his chamber on 2-1-1995, heard the Advocate of the petitioner in respect of his request for commutation of the sentence under section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and rejected his request which was informed to the petitioner by the letter dated 30-3-1995, on which the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No. 128 of 1996. The said contempt petition was dismissed by the Court on 6-5-1997 by observing that there was no contempt. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner is agitating the issue again and again by misusing the process of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is, therefore, not entitled for any relief and it would be appropriate on the part of this Court to direct him to surrender to jail and undergo the sentence as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As this Court found that the reply filed by the State sworn by Shri H.B. Tayade, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, was not satisfactory, the respondent/State was directed to file affidavit of some more responsible person than the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, and to file proper reply, by its order dated 16-11-1998. Thereafter, affidavit of Shri Suresh Chandra, Secretary to Government, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, came to be filed on 4th February, 1999. Thereafter, affidavit of Shri Suresh Chandra, Secretary to Government, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, came to be filed on 4th February, 1999. Then on 26th March, 1999, learned Government Pleader assured the Court that he will file affidavit of Shri P.M.A. Hakeem who was holding additional charge with the Department concerned and subsequently, affidavit of Shri Poduachola Mohamad Abdul Hakeem who was at the relevant time having additional charge of the Secretary, Home Department, came to be filed. In the, affidavit filed by Shri Suresh Chandra, the respondent/State submitted that specific direction of this Court for giving hearing to the petitioner and recording the reasons in case of rejection of petitioner's application was unfortunately not brought to the notice of the then Secretary, Shri P.M.A. Hakeem who was holding additional charge of this Department during the absence of the regular Secretary, Shri Suresh Chandra who was on leave. Consequently, the same was also not brought to the notice of the Minister and in these circumstances the impugned order came to be passed. The said mistake is sincerely regretted and this respondent as in-charge Secretary of the Department tenders unconditional apology for the mistake in passing the impugned order without issuing notice to the petitioner. It is respectfully submitted that the said mistake was bona fide and there was no intention whatsoever to disobey or disregard any order passed by this Court. The said mistake occurred in the facts and circumstances stated above and, therefore, the respondent/State tendered unconditional apology for the aforesaid mistake and sought pardon. It was further submitted that the petitioner had already surrendered himself and has already served out the sentence and, therefore, the respondent/State be pardoned for the inadvertent mistake that has occurred while passing the order impugned. Mr. Hakeem, in his affidavit, has demonstrated that how specific directions of this Court to give fresh personal hearing to the petitioner and to give reasons in case the earlier decision was maintained, were unfortunately not brought out in the noting without there being slightest intention on their part or any of the competent authority to disregard or disobey the directions of this Court, while passing the order rejecting the application of the petitioner and submitted that the mistake was inadvertent and bona fide. It was contended that as per the practice prevailing in Mantralaya, a file is first processed by the Desk Officer concerned in the particular Department who scrutinises the papers, makes his noting and thereafter the file is routed to the Deputy Secretary of the Department. The Deputy Secretary examines it and put up thereafter to the Secretary with the departmental notes for further action. After this, the Secretary submits the papers to the Minister incharge of the subject wherever necessary for appropriate orders. The case of the petitioner was processed by the Desk Officer who made his noting and on 20th June, 1988, marked the said note to the Deputy Secretary. Since the Deputy Secretary was at that time on leave, the file was put up before Mr. Hakeem who perused the noting from Desk Officer and forwarded the same file to the Minister of State (Prisons) and thereafter to the Deputy Chief Minister (Home), on 23rd June, 1998. The Minister of State (Prisons) endorsed the same on 24th June, 1998 and thereafter the Deputy Chief Minister (Home) passed orders on 29th June, 1998 rejecting the request of the petitioner. The file was thereafter directly sent to the concerned section for communication of the decision to all concerned. Mr. Hakeem has also expressed his sincere regrets for the mistake and tendered unconditional apology for the said mistake and prays for pardon and assures the Court that necessary instructions have been given to all concerned to ensure that such situations do not recur in future and that the noting on the file must clearly and specifically bring out all orders of the Hon'ble Courts and that such orders should be specifically highlighted and, brought to the notice of the concerned competent authorities while dealing with files. 9. As regards the allegations of the petitioner that he was forced to do manual work by the prison authorities while undergoing his sentence, the respondents have filed affidavits of Narayan s/o Baburao Borkar, Jailor Group-I, Akola District Prisons, Akola, Shri Sudhakar Dynaneshwar Kamalkar, Senior Jailor, Akola District Prison, Akola, who stated that the petitioner was allotted the work as per his own requests made to the Jail Authorities vide his application dated 6-8-1998, a true copy of which has been annexed along with the affidavit. Accordingly, the petitioner was given the work considering his request and a note to that effect was made in the history ticket in that behalf which is annexed as Annexure-B and, therefore, it was submitted that the allegations of the petitioner that he was made to undergo rigorous imprisonment and was assigned manual work and that the Jail Authorities are pressurising the petitioner to make a submission regarding having worked voluntarily during the jail term are emphatically denied. It was contended that the petitioner was paid the admissible wages of Rs. 55/- for the work done by him and the said amount has been received by him on 2-10-1998 and 26-10-1998. It is further stated that the petitioner has also earned remission of 7 days as admissible under the rules which could be earned by him in the event of his being desire to do the jail work and the petitioner was made aware during the orientation as per Maharashtra Prisons (Admission, Classification Separation of Prisoners) Rules, 1966 and, therefore, in the circumstances, it is submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner, are baseless. To this, the petitioner filed an affidavit in reply denying the fact of having made such an application to the Jail Authorities for allotment of work and submitted that his signature at the end of the application is not obtained from him and he had never signed on any such application. By way of Counter affidavit, Jail Authorities filed affidavit of Shri Sudhakar Dnyaneshwar Kamalkar, Senior Jailor, Akola District Prison, Akola, who reaffirmed the contentions stating that the petitioner did make the application dated 6-8-1998, requesting for allotment of work after he was made aware during the orientation as per Maharashtra Prisons (Admission, Classification Separation of Prisoners) Rules, 1966, in particular in terms of Rule 19(i). It is submitted that the petitioner was also made aware of Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962 that he can get order of remission as per the rules. It is submitted that the application dated 6-8-1998 requesting for allotment of work, was voluntarily signed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was also made aware of Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962 that he can get order of remission as per the rules. It is submitted that the application dated 6-8-1998 requesting for allotment of work, was voluntarily signed by the petitioner. Therefore, the Senior Jailor has put an endorsement on the said application on the same date, and that the petitioner has accepted the wages also for the work done by him and that the signatures of the petitioner on the Wage Card and other documents are duly attested by the Prison Authority and, therefore, averments made by the petitioner in his affidavit dated 23-2-1999, are clearly an after thought and liable to be rejected. 10. Mrs. Bhide, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents have in clear terms, accepted that they have not complied with the orders dated 8th September, 1997, passed by this Court in Criminal Application No. 938 of 1994 wherein hearing of the petitioner on his application dated 26-12-1995 and to decide the same in accordance with the law and in case the State Government again decides to reject the same, to disclose the reasons for doing so, was ordered. It is submitted that failure on the part of the respondent/State to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in the matter and non disclosure of reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner to commute his sentence has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that before the petitioner could seek justice, the petitioner was directed to surrender himself in prison and undergo sentence. It is submitted that the petitioner, at the earliest possible opportunity i.e., on 30th July, 1998 filed the said petition and though this Court protected the petitioner by passing the interim order on 5-8-1998, it had become infructuous. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the respondents have accepted their mistake, it will be most appropriate for this Court to take suitable action against the respondents for having flouted its orders and grant compensation to the petitioner for having suffered an order of rejection communicated by letter dated 8-7-1998 which came to be passed without assigning any reason as directed by this Court. In support of her contention, the learned Counsel placed reliance on a case of (Khatri and others v. State of Bihar and others)1, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 928 and submitted that the respondent/State has infringed the constitutional right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 and the Court can certainly injunct the State from depriving the citizen of his personal life and liberty, except in accordance with the procedure established by law and, therefore, as the petitioner has already suffered imprisonment without his application for commutation of sentence being decided in accordance with the specific directions given by this Court, it is nothing but depriving the petitioner of his personal liberty without following the directions of this Court and which cannot be said to be in accordance with law. It is submitted that considering the circumstances, the Court should direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner. 11. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is also entitled for being compensated to undergo rigorous imprisonment instead of simple imprisonment as sentenced and that appropriate action be taken against the jail authorities in the matter. 12. Mr. Kukdey, the learned Government Pleader, vehemently argued that the power to grant pardons, deprivation, recision or remission of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence, is an executive function to be exercised by the State after taking into consideration various matters which would not be germane before the Court of law inquiring into offence. Therefore, Mr. Kukdey submitted that Court is accordingly precluded from exercising of powers in a particular case and, therefore, the Court cannot interfere on the ground that the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner, for commutation of sentence was without assigning any reason. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that no reason be given by the Government for allowing or rejecting such application and Government grant such prayer even where the superior Court has refused reduction of sentence. The learned Government Pleader has relied on the cases of (Hukum Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana)2, A.I.R. 1975 P. H. 148, (K.M. Nanavati v. The State of Bombay)3, A.I.R. 1961 Supreme Court 112. (Harbans Singh v. The State of P H)4, 1987 Criminal Law Journal 1088 and catena of decisions in support of his contentions. The learned Government Pleader has relied on the cases of (Hukum Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana)2, A.I.R. 1975 P. H. 148, (K.M. Nanavati v. The State of Bombay)3, A.I.R. 1961 Supreme Court 112. (Harbans Singh v. The State of P H)4, 1987 Criminal Law Journal 1088 and catena of decisions in support of his contentions. It is submitted that the respondents have shown before this Court that their conduct in rejecting the application of the petitioner for commutation of sentence, was not in any manner labelled as flouting of the orders of this Court. It is submitted that when the file was presented before the concerned Minister for taking a decision, it was not brought to the notice of the concerned Minister that this Court has directed the State to grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on his application dated 26-12-1995 and that in case it decides to reject the application, to disclose the reason for the same. Therefore, Minister proceeded to decide the application in accordance with law. Mr. Kukdey submitted that as the exercise of powers under section 433 of Criminal Procedure Code, which flows from Article 161 of the Constitution of India, does not contemplate a procedure to hear the person sentenced for the purpose of commuting his sentence and as the discretion solely rests with the Government, it also does not make it obligatory to assign any reason for rejecting such application. The respondent/State has not committed any error or illegality so as to call for interference. In the circumstances, Mr. Kukdey has submitted that the petitioner deserves to be rejected. Mr. Kukdey further submitted that the respondent/State has shown its bona fides by filing affidavits of high ranking officials as to how the error crept in not taking into consideration the directions of this Court and the respondents deserve to be pardoned in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 13. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was made to undergo rigorous imprisonment instead of simple imprisonment, Mr. 13. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was made to undergo rigorous imprisonment instead of simple imprisonment, Mr. Kukdey submits that these allegations are baseless as the respondents have filed affidavits of Jail authorities along with copies of the documents which show that the petitioner himself volunteered to work in order to gain remission and did take advantage of it and, therefore, now it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to agitate the issue and this contention of the petitioner deserves to be outrightly rejected. 14. Section 433 of Criminal Procedure Code reads as under : "433. The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute--- (a) a sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860); (b) a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine; (c) a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced, or for fine; (d) a sentence of simple imprisonment, for fine." In the case of the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court converted the sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment to one of simple imprisonment for the same period and made specific observation that this has been done in order to facilitate his moving the State Government for conversion of sentence under section 433 Criminal Procedure Code. As under Clause (d) of section 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a sentence of simple imprisonment can be commuted for fine. These observations of the Supreme Court gave a ray of hope to the petitioner to get his sentence commuted by the State Government. There can be no doubt as to the preposition that the right to exercise the power under section 433 of Criminal Procedure Code vests in the Government and has to be exercised by the Government in accordance with the rules and established principles (State of Punjab and Haryana v. Ishwarsingh)5, 1996(5) Supreme Court Cases 495. Therefore, it is clear that the discretion vested in the appropriate Government under section 433 Criminal Procedure Code to commute a sentence has to be exercised by the Government in accordance with the rules and established principles. Therefore, it is clear that the discretion vested in the appropriate Government under section 433 Criminal Procedure Code to commute a sentence has to be exercised by the Government in accordance with the rules and established principles. The circumstances in which the State may exercise a particular power are nowhere defined under section 433 Cr.P.C. and such exercise of powers save inferentially in the case where the power has been considered, but generally require the State to be satisfied of the fairness and rightness in the circumstances of what it is going to do. Once the power is required to be exercised in accordance with the rules and the established principles, the hearing is quasi judicial and the requirements of natural justice apply to it. In order to see that rule and procedure is followed, what is contemplated is that each side be heard and no man be condemned unheard, i.e. the rule of "audi alteram partem" is followed and it is under these circumstances that when the petitioner repeatedly approached this Court being dissatisfied with the decision of the State on his application of commutation of sentence, ultimately on 8th September, 1997, in Criminal Application No. 938 of 1996 filed by the petitioner, this Court gave specific direction that the respondent/State is directed to grant opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on his application dated 26-12-1995 and to decide the same in accordance with law and in case the State Government again decides to reject the same, to disclose the reason. Rule was made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Though the principle applies and the State had failed to follow rules of procedure, the Court had annulled the previous decision and required the matter to be considered afresh. 15. At the very outset, I would like to make it clear that this Court is not examining the extent of the power vested in the State under section 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but while considering such an application, the State is expected to consider the case from the view point of well established principles applied by the Courts in enhancement or reduction of the sentence when considering the matter judicially. In the course of hearing, this Court enquired from the learned Government Pleader as to whether the State has framed any rules, procedure or guidelines for considering such cases under sections 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C. The learned Government Pleader placed before the Court a letter received from the Home Department. In the said letter, it has been made clear that no such rules, procedure or guidelines are framed by the State, but while considering a particular case, nature of the crime, whether the convict is habitual offender or whether the offence for which the person has been convicted is against the society at large and so on, are taken into consideration and after giving anxious consideration and considering the merits of each individual case, a decision is taken. Various judicial pronouncement have laid down principles, such as mitigating circumstances which can be considered and are normally considered for reduction of sentence and can be helpful to the State in exercising their powers for commutation of sentence. It is always better to give reasons particularly when a relief sought by a citizen is denied to him as it enables a person to understand for what reason his application has been rejected. It inspires confidence in the system because it is transparent and if challenged before the Court, it would satisfy the judicial conscious that the Government has exercised its powers in accordance with the rules and established principles. There is another aspect to it, it ensure the person that the right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, has not been violated. 16. This Court was required to make aforesaid observations in order to justify its directions to the State for considering the application filed by the petitioner for commutation of sentence and it cannot be gain- said that these directions need not be complied with while exercising the powers under section 433 of Cr.P.C. 17. The respondent/State having admitted the lapses on its part that it has failed to comply with the directions of this Court to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and for recording the reasons in case of rejection of the petitioner's application in the facts and circumstances, deserves to be condoned. Mr. Kukdey, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that the respondent/State is also making enquiry in the said lapses and proposes to take stern action against the defaulting officer. Mr. Kukdey, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that the respondent/State is also making enquiry in the said lapses and proposes to take stern action against the defaulting officer. The State having accepted that the mistake was bona fide and there was no intention whatsoever to disobey or disregard any order passed by this Court, but it all occurred due to failure on the part of bureaucracy to place on record such direction of the Court before the Hon'ble Minister because of which the impugned order came to be passed by overlooking the directions given by this Court, which was obviously not intentional. As the directions were not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Minister, Court accepts the unconditional apology for the mistake on the part of the respondent-State and grant pardon sofar as initiation of any action under the contempt of Courts Act is concerned. But, this Court finds that the petitioner having lost a remedy available to him due to noncompliance of the directions passed by this Court which resulted in passing of the impugned order and having suffered imprisonment before he could assail the impugned order, the matter should not be left without giving any relief to the petitioner. In the case of (State of Bihar and others v. Subhash Singh)6, A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 1390, the Apex Court has considered such incidence that the bureaucracy has failed to comply with the directions given by the Court and no explanation was given for delay or non-compliance. The Court went on to observe as under. "A member of the permanent executive, is enjoined to comply with the orders of the Court passed in exercise of the judicial review. When a Court issues certain directions to the executive authorities, it is expected that the authorities would discharge their duties expeditiously as enjoined under the rules and as per the directions. If they do not discharge the duty, necessarily, they are required to give explanation to the Court as to the circumstances in which they could not comply with the direction issued by the Court or if there was any unavoidable delay, they should seek further time for compliance. If they do not discharge the duty, necessarily, they are required to give explanation to the Court as to the circumstances in which they could not comply with the direction issued by the Court or if there was any unavoidable delay, they should seek further time for compliance. When, neither of the steps have been taken by the officer in that regard the Court can impose the costs personally against him for noncompliance of the order." Admittedly, the State has accepted its lapses but according to them it has occurred due to inadvertence and the mistake is sincerely regretted. As submitted by the learned Government Pleader, the State has already initiated an enquiry. This is a fit case where for such lapses on the part of the State in non compliance with the specific directions of this Court in the matter, the Court proposes to impose cost in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the State to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. It will be open for the State to recover the said cost personally from the concerned officer who is ultimately found to be responsible for not bringing it to the notice of the Hon'ble Minister the order of this Court directing the State to give fresh hearing to the petitioner and record reason in case of rejection of the petitioner's application. 18. This Court finds that the allegations made by the petitioner that he was made to undergo rigorous imprisonment making him to work while he was in prison, cannot be considered in this petition as it involves disputed question of facts and the relief urged on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Counsel deserves to be rejected. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. -----