Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner preferred this application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiation of proceeding for contempt of Court against the opposite parties for alleged violation of the order dated 6th July, 1998 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1605 of 1998(R). 2. The petitioner earlier moved before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and made grievance that her house, situated on R.S. plot No. 3027(Part)/ new Plot No. 2 (part), Western side of Railway Crossing to the Junction of Kadari road, Ward No. 15 of Jamshedpur Notified Area Committed, was going to be demolished by the authorities. It was pleaded that the house construction was over raiyati land and public land had not been encroached. The authorities were alleged to be bent upon to demolish the entire house of the petitioner. 3. This Court by its order dated 6th July, 1998, taking into consideration that the petitioner had already preferred representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (east), Jamshedpur, asked the petitioner to file fresh representation before the said authority, who in his turns was directed to measure the land in question in presence of the parties and if any encroachment was found to remove the same. 4. In the present case, it is alleged that Courts order aforesaid has been violated and the house of the petitioner has been demolished by the opposite parties on 22nd July, 1998 without measurement and with any opportunity to remove her belongings. 5. According to the petitioner, she filed representation with the order of Court before the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (East) at Jamshedpur on 9th July, 1998 whereinafter the said authority issued notice to the petitioner vide memo No.140 dated 15th July, 1998 and fixed 18th July, 1998 at 11 a.m. as the date and time for measurement of land. However, Without such measurement, on 22nd July, 1998 at 12 noon, the contemnor/opposite parties demolished the house in question in violation of all the norms and laws and also in violation of this Courts order dated 6th July, 1998. 6. The opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 4 filed their respective show cause and tendered unqulified apology. According to them, the Courts order has not been violated. 6. The opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 4 filed their respective show cause and tendered unqulified apology. According to them, the Courts order has not been violated. However, it has been accepted by the opposite party No. 3 that the structure in question has been demolished, but according to him, it was unintentional and made in pursuance of another order of this Court. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur and Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur though took specific plea that they did not take part in the matter of demolition of structure in question and were not present on the spot on the date of demolition, the petitioner, who was present in Court on 18th July 1999, informed this Court that the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, Sri Sanjay Kumar and Superintendent of Police were also present at the time of demolition along with the then S.D.O. Bahadur Prasad. However, she was not in a position to state name of the Superintendent of Police, but stated that the Courts order was brought to the notice of the D.C. Jamshedpur. 7. From the show cause filed by the opposite party No. 1, Sanjay Kumar the Deputy Commissioner, it appears that on receipt of the Courts order and represention of the petitioner, he forwarded the matter to the Deputy Collector, Tata Lease, Jamshedpur, the competent authority having jurisdiction to initiate and dispose of the proceeding under B.P.L.E. Act. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector. Tata Lease, taking into consideration the Courts order issued notice on 15th July, 1998 for measurement of the land. On 18th July, 1998, one Sri. H.C. Pingua, Amin, Tata Lease, appointed for measurement of the land, who informed that though the peitioner was present but no representative on behalf of Tinplate Company being present no measurement could be taken. Subsequently, the 25th July, 1998 was the date fixed for measurement and it was ordered to issue notice to the parties. The Deputy Collector, Tata Lease subsequently having come to know of demolition by its letter dated 28th November, 1998 intimated that he had not passed any order for demolition of building in question. 8. Opposite party No. 4, Circle Officer, Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur, while tendered unqualified apology, stated that he did not took any part in the matter of demolition, the opposite party No. 5 has also taken similar stand. 9. 8. Opposite party No. 4, Circle Officer, Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur, while tendered unqualified apology, stated that he did not took any part in the matter of demolition, the opposite party No. 5 has also taken similar stand. 9. In the show cause filed by the opposite party No. 3, Bahadur Prasad, the then Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum at Jamshedpur, he has accepted demolition of the building in question and has tendered unconditional, unqualified apology. However, according to him, be had no ill-motive for the same but in compliance of this Courts order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2290 of 1990 (R) he issued direction vide memo No.386 dated 21st July, 1998 to Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, the then Executive Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur and asked him to remove the encroachment from the flanks of the roads near Tinplate Chawk, under Golmuri P.S. Jamshedpur. It is further stated that he never asked any officer to violate any order of this Court and/or to jump over the order dated 6th July, 1998 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1605 of 1998(R). He has taken specific plea that the petitioner never produced the order dated 6th July, 1998 of this Court before him. 10. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that a Division Bench of this Court, at Patna, is monitoring a Public Interest Litigation in the case of "Aran Kumar Mukherjee V/s. State of Bihar and Ors" in C.W.J.C. No. 2290 of 1990, wherein direction has been given for removal of unauthorised encroachment from the road and its flanks. In pursuance of such order, the encroachments at different places have been removed and such action is still going. However, no blanket order has been passed by this Court for demolition of any building/structure, even those situated over raiyati lands or in violatioh of any order of this Court. 11. It is thereby clear that the building in question has been demolished by the persons (Bahadur Prasad and Ashok Kumar Mishra) in pursuance of order passed by this Court in the case of "Arun Kumar Mukherjee (supra), who had no knowledge of the Courts order dated 6th July, 1998 passed in C.W.J.C, No. 1605 of 1998(R). 12. In the facts and circumstances, such action being not intentional and in view of unqualified apology tendered by opposite parties. 12. In the facts and circumstances, such action being not intentional and in view of unqualified apology tendered by opposite parties. I discharge them from this proceeding with direction to be cautious in the matter of demolition. 13. However, in the facts and circumstances, the demolition having made in violation of the Courts order, I impose cost on the State of Bihar, assessed to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid in favour of the petitioner within two months. 14. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum (East) is directed to ensure payment of such cost on behalf of the State from the exchequer of the District Administration. 15. The proceeding is hereby dropped. The M.J.C. application stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. Proceedings dropped.