Judgment :- This case arising of a suo motu contempt proceeding involving a chequered history needs narration. 2. M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. filed two suits in C. S. Nos. 424 of 1999 and 425 of 1999 for recovery of the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs each against the defendants. This is based on the Hire Purchase Agreements entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants as per which the Tata Sumo Car and the truck owned by the plaintiff had been lent on hire with the defendants. As per the agreement, the defendants have to pay hire charges every month. In case of failure to pay the hire charges as and when it becomes due, the plaintiff would be entitled to seize those vehicles as provided in the agreements. Since the defendants, after making payment of some instalments, failed to pay the remaining instalments in spite of notice, the plaintiff had filed these two suits. Two applications were also filed in those suits in Application Nos. 1896 and 1897 of 1999 requesting this Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to seize these vehicles from the defendants and hand over the same to the plaintiff. 3. This Court on entertaining those suits, passed an order in the applications appointing one Mr. Sudhakar, Advocate, as Commissioner directing him to seize the vehicles and hand over the same to the plaintiff/applicant directly to him. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai was also directed to provide police protection to the Advocate Commissioner to execute the warrant. The Commissioner was directed to submit a report within three weeks. This order was passed by this Court on 25-6-1999. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai was also directed to provide police protection to the Advocate Commissioner to execute the warrant. The Commissioner was directed to submit a report within three weeks. This order was passed by this Court on 25-6-1999. 4. On 15-9-1999, the Advocate Commissioner filed an interim report before this Court stating that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 25-6-1999, he went to Madurai and he was informed by the applicant/plaintiff that the vehicles in question were at Kamudhi, Ramnad District, that they went to Kamudhi and on service of notice on the second defendant, who is the father of the first defendant, he informed the Advocate Commissioner that the vehicles were not with them presently and the vehicles had been sent out of Kamudhi and same were expected after one month and that therefore the Advocate Commissioner requested this Court to extend the period of seizure by six weeks to execute the warrant and to direct the Superintendent of Police, Ramnad District to give necessary police protection as Kamudhi lies in that District. 5. The matter came up before this Court on 29-9-1999. In the meantime, Mr. Venkataseshan, the learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of the first and second defendants. After hearing the parties, by order dated 29-9-1999, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Ramnad District to give police protection to the Advocate Commissioner during the time of seizure of the vehicles in question and the period was also extended by four weeks from 29-9-1999 to 27-10-1999. 6. On 17-2-2000, the Advocate Commissioner filed an additional report in which he would state that in spite of the grant of extension of time for four weeks, the applicant/plaintiff did not take any steps to locate the vehicles and hence, he would return the warrant unexecuted to this Court. He would also ask for additional remuneration, in view of the volume of the work, the time spent and the distance covered in his having made attempt for the seizure of the vehicles, 7. The matter came up on 22-3-2000. When the counsel for the plaintiff was brought to the notice of the statement of the Advocate Commissioner about the non-co-operative attitude of the plaintiff, the counsel for the plaintiff denied the above accusation. Mr. The matter came up on 22-3-2000. When the counsel for the plaintiff was brought to the notice of the statement of the Advocate Commissioner about the non-co-operative attitude of the plaintiff, the counsel for the plaintiff denied the above accusation. Mr. Venkatseshan, the learned counsel for the defendants, would state that the vehicles were now available in Kamudhi and the Advocate Commissioner could go there and seize the vehicles, as per the orders passed by this Court on 25-6-1999. 8. In view of the said statement, this Court extended the period of warrant for 2 more weeks and directed the Advocate Commissioner to go to Kamudhi and seize the vehicles within one week from the date of the order. This Court also recorded the undertaking given by the counsel for the defendants that the defendants would co-operate with the Advocate Commissioner for the execution of the order of seizure passed by this Court. In view of the circumstances, the Advocate Commissioner has to go again to Kamudhi to seize the vehicles. The plaintiff/applicant was directed to give additional remuneration of Rs. 10,000/- on each application. 9. On 4-4-2000, the Advocate Commissioner filed another report before this Court. According to the report, in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 22-3-2000, he served the notice on 24-3-2000 on both the plaintiffs counsel and the defendants' counsel requesting to co-operate with him to execute the warrant. He left Chennai on 27-3-2000 and reached Madurai on 28-3-2000 at 7.00 a.m. From there, he went to Kamudhi along with the plaintiff's counsel Mr. Arunakumar and the plaintiff's representative Mr. Ashok Raj and reached the defendants' house at Kamudhi on 2.30 p.m. The Advocate Commissioner explained the order of this Court to the second defendant, but he replied that both the vehicles were not available with him as they were out of station and he promised to hand over the vehicles within 15 days. The second defendant had also asked the Advocate Commissioner to go to Madurai and meet his son Muthuramalingam, the first defendant, who in turn would inform the Advocate Commissioner the mode of surrender of the vehicles. 10. Accordingly on 29-3-2000 evening, they came back and met the first defendant at his house at Madurai. The second defendant had also asked the Advocate Commissioner to go to Madurai and meet his son Muthuramalingam, the first defendant, who in turn would inform the Advocate Commissioner the mode of surrender of the vehicles. 10. Accordingly on 29-3-2000 evening, they came back and met the first defendant at his house at Madurai. Muthuramalingam, the first defendant, gave a letter to the Advocate Commissioner stating that he would hand over the vehicles to the plaintiff directly within 15 days. When the Advocate Commissioner pointed out to the first defendant that the vehicles have to be handed over to the Advocate Commissioner only and not to the plaintiff, the first defendant gave a letter of undertaking that he will hand over the vehicles directly to the plaintiff, When the Advocate Commissioner informed the plaintiff's representative it is his duty to locate the vehicles and seize them as per the orders of the High Court and requested him to facilitate the seizure, the plaintiff's representative, Ashok Raj had replied and warned that the first defendant is an influential person in Kamudhi and if any effort is made to locate the vehicles and seize them, it may cause a risk to their lives. Since the said Ashok Raj assured his best to locate the vehicles in course of time, the Advocate Commissioner had to return to Chennai without executing the warrant. 11. In his report dated 4-4-2000, this Court was again requested to extend the time for further four weeks and to issue direction to the Superintendent of Police, Ramnad District, to give police protection to the Advocate Commissioner to execute the warrant. 12. Again on 10-4-2000, the Advocate Commissioner filed a Memo before this Court intimating this Court that the additional remuneration which was directed to be paid by order dated 22-3-2000 had not been paid and with regard to the efforts to execute the warrant by going to Madurai and Kamudhi on 28-3-2000, he had filed an interim report dated 4-4-2000. 13. Though the matter was directed to be posted on 6-4-2000, it was not posted on that date. Therefore, the Advocate Commissioner mentioned before this Court and obtained a Court slip directing the matter to be posted on 7-4-2000. 13. Though the matter was directed to be posted on 6-4-2000, it was not posted on that date. Therefore, the Advocate Commissioner mentioned before this Court and obtained a Court slip directing the matter to be posted on 7-4-2000. However, the said matter was not posted, since two persons were involved in holding up the case bundle and preventing it to face any proceedings for disobedience of the order of this Court. Despite the Court slip, the matter was not posted a complaint to the Assistant Registrar-I, High Court, Madras. 14. In regard to the remuneration, the Accounts Officer of the plaintiff informed the Advocate Commissioner on 27-3-2000 that the remuneration could be collected from Ashok Raj, plaintiff's representative at Madurai. When Ashok Raj was contacted, he stated that the remuneration will be paid of Chennai on 3-4-2000. As per the request of Ashok Raj, the Advocate Commissioner went to the plaintiff's office at Chennai at 5.00 p.m. on 3-4-2000. He was waiting till 6.30 p.m. Then he was informed that he could get the remuneration through the plaintiff's counsel. Despite that, he did not receive any amount from the plaintiff's counsel. 15. In the meantime, the Advocate Commissioner reported before this Court through the Memorandum dated 17-3-2000 about the non-co-operative attitude of the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff firm was having a hostile attitude to the Advocate Commissioner and consequently, he was not able to execute the warrant and due to these happenings, the Advocate Commissioner had been subjected to mental agony and personal inconvenience. 16. In the meantime, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the order of additional remuneration dated 22-3-2000. The appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court on 17-4-2000 and the same was dismissed as devoid of merits. 17. At this stage, the matter came up before this Court on 29-4-2000. This Court expressing the feeling of angulish, recorded the attitude of non-co-operation of the defendants and passed a further order directing the Advocate Commissioner for the seizure of the vehicle on or before 24-4-2000. Mr. Venkataseshan again would undertake that he would see that the vehicles are handed over to the Advocate Commissioner, 18. Since the appeal was dismissed, Mr. Chandran, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would undertake that the additional remuneration of Rs. 10,000/- ordered on each application would be paid on or before 24-4-2000. Mr. Venkataseshan again would undertake that he would see that the vehicles are handed over to the Advocate Commissioner, 18. Since the appeal was dismissed, Mr. Chandran, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would undertake that the additional remuneration of Rs. 10,000/- ordered on each application would be paid on or before 24-4-2000. After recording this undertaking, the matter was posted before this Court on 24-4-2000. 19. On 24-4-2000, the Advocate Commissioner filed a Memo stated that he had received a letter dated 21-4-2000 enclosing a cheque for Rs. 18,900/- and stating that Rs. 1,100/- have been deducted as T.D.S. As per the order passed by this Court, the Advocate Commissioner must be paid Rs. 20,000/- as additional remuneration. 20. When the matter came up before this Court on 26-4-2000, all these things were brought to the notice of this Court, which constrained to issue a suo motu contempt against the plaintiff's representative and the first defendant. The said order is as follows :- "It is quite unfortunate on the part of the counsel for the parties that they have not conducted themselves true to this Court. This Court is constrained to issue contempt notice to both the plaintiff represented by Mr. Ashok Raj and Mr. Muthuramalingam, the first defendant for the acts committed by them. 2. The plaintiff/applicant filed the suits for recovery of the amount. Pending suits, he filed two applications for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to go to Kamudhi and seize the vehicles which were handed over to the first defendant on Hire Purchase Agreement by the plaintiff. Accordingly, this Court passed orders on 25-6-1999 appointing one Mr. Sudhakar as Advocate Commissioner to go and seize the vehicles. 3. On 7-7-1999 and 8-7-1999 Mr. Sudhakar, the Advocate Commissioner went and met the defendant accompanies by the representatives of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's counsel. But, the vehicles were not available. Subsequently, since the order passed by this Court was not able to be complied with, the Advocate Commissioner was constrained to file an interim report on 15-9-1999 requesting for further time for executing the warrant and also sought for police protection. Accordingly, the same was ordered on 29-9-1999. Even then, the Advocate Commissioner due to non-co-operation of both the plaintiff and defendant, was not able to seize the vehicles as per the direction of this Court. Accordingly, the same was ordered on 29-9-1999. Even then, the Advocate Commissioner due to non-co-operation of both the plaintiff and defendant, was not able to seize the vehicles as per the direction of this Court. Therefore, the Advocate Commissioner filed an additional report returning the warrant unexecuted and requesting this Court for additional remuneration. 4. On hearing the counsel for the parties, as this Court, on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner, felt that the Advocate Commissioner was not effectively able to execute the warrant due to the non-co-operation of the plaintiff and the defendant, directed them to co-operate with the Advocate Commissioner at least in the future and also directed the plaintiff to pay additional remuneration of Rs. 10,000/- in each application to be paid directly to the Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner was further directed by extending the warrant period for two more weeks to go and seize the vehicles within one week after recording the undertaking given by the counsel M. Venkataseshan, appearing for the first defendant that his client would co-operate for the seizure of the vehicles as the vehicles are then available with the first defendant. 5. On obtaining the warrant issued by this Court dated 22-3-2000 the Advocate Commissioner went along with the plaintiffs counsel and the representative of the plaintiff to seize the vehicles. But even then, the first defendant did not co-operate with the Advocate Commissioner for seizure on the pretext of the vehicles being not available with him at that time. When the Advocate Commissioner requested the plaintiff's representative to take steps to seize the vehicles, Mr. Ashok Raj, the representative of the plaintiff stated that the first defendant is an influential person in Kamudhi and if the plaintiff's staff makes an attempt to locate the vehicles, it may cause risk to their lives and on that basis the Advocate Commissioner was constrained to come back to Chennai and filed this report narrating the reasons for the failure to execute the order dated 22-3-2000. In the report, it is also pointed out that the remuneration ordered by this Court has not been paid. 6. As pointed out by the counsel for the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed, O.S.A. with regard to the quantum of remuneration and since O.S.A. was pending, the amount was not paid. In the report, it is also pointed out that the remuneration ordered by this Court has not been paid. 6. As pointed out by the counsel for the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed, O.S.A. with regard to the quantum of remuneration and since O.S.A. was pending, the amount was not paid. At the time of taking up the matter for final disposal, it is now pointed out that the said O.S.A. was dismissed and consequently, the plaintiff paid the remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner only on 21-4-2000. 7. I am also pained to see the memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner dated 24-4-2000 stating that instead of Rs. 20,000/- as per the order of this Court, the plaintiff gave only Rs. 18,900/- stating that the amount of Rs. 1,100/- has been deducted as T.D.S. (Tax Deducted at Source) at the rate of 5.5%. 8. Thus, it is clear that the direction given in the order passed by this Court has not been fully complied with. Furthermore, as per the report dated 4-4-2000, the Advocate Commissioner was given written undertaking by the first defendant stating that the vehicles were not available at that time and he assured that the vehicles would be handed over to the plaintiff directly within 15 days. Now, it is reported before this Court by the memo being filed by the defendants that the vehicles have been handed over to the plaintiff only on 22-4-2000. This also shows that the first defendant also is equally anxious to see that the order of seizure passed by this Court is not complied with. 9. Under those circumstances, I feel that contempt has been committed by both Mr. Ashok Raj, the representative of the plaintiff and Mr. Muthuramalingam, the first defendant. Therefore, Office is directed to issue show cause notice to them returnable by 14-6-2000. The contemners are also directed to be present on that day." 21. After service of notice, both the contemners appeared before this Court and filed an affidavit. According to the first contemner, namely, the plaintiff's representative, though they have regional office at Chennai, they have to get payment of the said amount from their head office at Hyderabad and since the Account Department at Hyderabad Office, as a matter of routine and practice, as the amount is over Rs. 20,000/-, had deducted T.D.S. and sent them a cheque for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, had deducted T.D.S. and sent them a cheque for a sum of Rs. 18,900/-, as a sum of Rs. 1,100/- being deducted as T.D.S. as per the Income-tax Act and thereafter, on receipt of contempt notice, they have separately paid Rs. 1,100/- to the Income-tax Department and in compliance with the order of this Court, he had a bankers cheque for the balance of Rs. 1,100/- favouring the Advocate Commissioner and he would be ready to hand over the same to the Advocate Commissioner. He would also state the act of the plaintiff was neither wanton nor wilful and however, the plaintiff may be pardoned, as the plaintiff is tendering his unconditional apology to this Court. 22. The second contemner, namely, the first defendant Muthuramalingam, has also filed an affidavit and narrated the circumstances under which the order of this Court was not complied with. According to him, when the Advocate Commissioner came for the first occasion, the vehicles were not available and when he came for the second time also, the vehicles were out of station. When he gave an undertaking to the plaintiff that he would surrender the vehicles within 15 days, the representative of the plaintiff stated that if he made payment and promised to pay further instalments, the question of seizure of the vehicles would be deferred. Accordingly, he paid some amount to the plaintiff and it is only because of that event, he had not surrendered the vehicles. He would further state that since the non-surrender of the vehicles on the earlier occasions was only due to the understanding between the plaintiff and the defendants relating to the payment of instalments, he may be pardoned by this Court, as he is tendering his unconditional apology for disobedience and in view of the fact that he has also filed an affidavit stating that on 22-4-2000, he surrendered both the vehicles to the plaintiff directly. 23. The affidavits filed by both the plaintiff and the first defendant in the suo motu contempt proceedings would clearly reveal that they had understanding to defer the order of seizure passed by this Court, in view of the part payment made by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. 24. 23. The affidavits filed by both the plaintiff and the first defendant in the suo motu contempt proceedings would clearly reveal that they had understanding to defer the order of seizure passed by this Court, in view of the part payment made by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. 24. As indicated above, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed on 25-6-1999 directing him to seize the vehicles within three weeks and the Superintendent of Police, Madurai was also directed to give police protection. On 15-9-1999, the Advocate Commissioner filed a report stating that the defendants had stated that the vehicles were not available in Kamudhi. As a matter of fact, according to the Advocate Commissioner, the defendants refused to make any endorsement on the Advocate Commissioner's papers. Thereafter, this Court by order dated 29-9-1999 extended the period for four more weeks by directing the Supreintendent of Police, Ramnad District to give police protection to the Advocate Commissioner to execute the warrant. 25. It is quite relevant to notice that this order had been passed on 29-9-1999, after hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. Venkataseshan, who entered appearance on behalf of the defendants, Despite the time being granted, there was no seizure and no steps were taken by the plaintiff to take the Advocate Commissioner to Kamudhi for seizure. As a matter of fact, it is the specific accusation made by the Advocate Commissioner against the plaintiff by the report dated 17-2-2000 stating that the applicant/plaintiff had not taken any steps to locate the vehicles and therefore, he is returning the warrant unexecuted to this Court. 26. As pointed out earlier, the order was passed on 12-9-1999 giving 4 weeks time and the vehicles had to be seized on or before 27-10-1999. But, nothing happened in between. In this context, the admission of the first defendant/the second contemner in his affidavit stating that there was understanding between them on making some payment for the purpose of deferring the execution of the order of seizure is quite relevant. Probably, that was the reason why the matter was not allowed to be posted before this Court on 27-10-1999, in spite of such a direction given in the said order, as correctly mentioned in the interim report of the Advocate Commissioner. 27. Probably, that was the reason why the matter was not allowed to be posted before this Court on 27-10-1999, in spite of such a direction given in the said order, as correctly mentioned in the interim report of the Advocate Commissioner. 27. Ultimately, only on the basis of the complaint given by the Advocate Commissioner to the Assistant Registrar, the matter was posted and this Court was given oppor tunity to deal with the matter on 22-3-2000. As noted above, this Court recorded on more than one occasion a non-co-operative attitude of the plaintiff and directed the Advocate Commissioner to go to Kamudhi again to seize the vehicles in the light of the representation made by Mr. Venkataseshan, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that the vehicles were very much available now with the defendants and they could be seized by the Advocate Commissioner. Further, his undertaking that the defendants would co-operate with the Advocate Commissioner for the said order of seizure was also recorded. 28. Despite that, the Advocate Commissioner, who went to Kamudhi on 28-3-2000 was not allowed to seize the vehicles, since the first defendant, the second contemner informed the Advocate Commissioner that the vehicles had gone to Kerala and that he would hand over the same directly to the plaintiff within 15 days. This is not only a breach of undertaking, but also amounting to driving the Advocate Commissioner from pillar to post. 29. To make it worse, when the Advocate Commissioner informed the plaintiff's representative that he must locate the vehicles and seize the same as per the Court's order, for which the plaintiff's representative must co-operate with him by locating the vehicles to facilitate him for seizure of the vehicles. Mr. Ashok Raj, the representative of the plaintiff, one of the contemners, had stated that the first defendant is an influential person in Kamudhi and if any attempts are made to seize the vehicles, they would cause danger to their lives. Ultimately, the Advocate Commissioner as a Court Officer who was sent by this Court to execute the order by seizing the vehicles, was not allowed to do his duty of executing the order by seizing the vehicles, by the plaintiff as well as the defendants. Ultimately, the Advocate Commissioner as a Court Officer who was sent by this Court to execute the order by seizing the vehicles, was not allowed to do his duty of executing the order by seizing the vehicles, by the plaintiff as well as the defendants. The reason is nothing but an understanding between the plaintiff and the defendants, as admitted by Muthuramalingam, one of the contemners in the affidavit filed before this Court. It is also pointed out that the second defendant, the father of the first defendant, is the former M. L. A. of the local area. 30. When this Court directed the plaintiff to pay the amount of Rs. 20,000/- within a particular date, the orders should have been complied with immediately. When the order was passed on 22-3-2000 asking the pliantiff to pay Rs. 10,000/- on each application and directing the Advocate Commissioner to go to Kamudhi and seize the vehicles, the said amount must have been paid even before his departure to Kamudhi. As a matter of fact, he gave the notice on 24-2-2000 informing about the order 22-3-2000 to both the counsel to co-operate for the execution of the warrant. The Advocate Commissioner went to Madurai on 27-3-2000 and spent two days on 28-3-2000 and 29-3-2000 and made efforts to seize the vehicle, but he had to return to Chennai without executing the warrant, since he was not given due co-operation not only by the defendant in breach of the undertaking given by this Court, but also by the plaintiff's representative who informed the Advocate Commissioner about the risk to their lives in the attempt for seizure of the vehicles. At least on that day, the additional remuneration must have been given. But, ultimately, the amount had been paid only on 21-4-2000 by the plaintiff's representative having failed in their attempts to get the order of additional remuneration set aside before the appellate Court. 31. Furthermore, it is painful to see that the Advocate Commissioner was directed to collect the said amount from the plaintiff's representative at Madurai. Thereafter, he was further directed to meet the representative at Chennai office and he was made to wait for 2 hours in the office and finally, the Advocate Commissioner was informed that he could collect the remuneration from the plaintiff's counsel. Thereafter, he was further directed to meet the representative at Chennai office and he was made to wait for 2 hours in the office and finally, the Advocate Commissioner was informed that he could collect the remuneration from the plaintiff's counsel. This is nothing but a sheer harassment to the Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed by this Court at the instance of the plaintiff himself. 32. The last straw on the camel's back is the issuance of a Draft for Rs. 18,900/- after deducting Rs. 1,100/-, despite the fact that the plaintiff was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- in both the applications to the Advocate Commissioner. The reason given by the contemmer/plaintiff's representative is that Accounts Department at Hyderabad office, as a matter of routine and practice, issued a D.D. for a sum of Rs. 18,900/- after deducting Rs. 1,100/- as T.D.S. as per the Incometax Act. In the same affidavit, it is further stated that now the said amount of Rs. 1,100/- was already paid to the Income-tax Department by the plaintiff's Head Office and he was now ready to hand over the bankers cheque for Rs. 1,100/- to the Advocate Commissioner. This explanation, in my view, is unacceptable, especially when he has now come forward to say that he is prepared to pay the balance amount by bankers cheque to the Advocate Commissioner, as they paid the tax amount to the Income-tax Department directly. This should have been done by the plaintiff earlier. 33. It may be noted in this context that the circumstances under which this Court was compelled to issue contempt, not merely on the reason of the deduction of the tax amount, but based on the various happenings as indicated in the earlier paragraphs. 34. It is also to be pointed out at this stage, the Original Side Section of this Registry was also attempted to be influenced to see that the matter was not posted before this Court for passing further orders in order to avoid the payment of additional remuneration. With regard to that, the Advocate Commissioner has given a complaint to the Assistant Registrar-I, High Court, Madras. This would reflect only the sorry state of affairs. 35. With regard to that, the Advocate Commissioner has given a complaint to the Assistant Registrar-I, High Court, Madras. This would reflect only the sorry state of affairs. 35. From what is stated above, it is quite clear that the orders passed by this Court on 22-3-2000 directing the Advocate Commissioner in the applications filed by the applicant/plaintiff were not allowed to be executed by both the plaintiff and the defendants. It is also important to note, at this juncture that the fact that the plaintiff's representative asked the Advocate Commissioner not to seize the vehicles, as such attempt would cause danger to their lives, has not been specifically denied in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff's representative. This shows that the first defendant being the son of former M.L.A. is a powerful man in the local area and this made the plaintiff's representative to advise the Advocate Commissioner not to seize the vehicles. In fact, the Superintendent of Police, Madural and the Superintendent of Police, Ramnad District were directed to provide protection to the Advocate Commissioner by the orders dated 25-6-1999 and 29-9-1999. Despite these orders, the Advocate Commissioner became helpless due to the understanding between the plaintiff and the defendants, as indicated above. 36. On these circumstances, when this Court indicated to both the plaintiff's representative and the defendants about their act of disobedience, both of them stated through their counsel that they may be pardoned and that they would be prepared to pay any amount of compensation to the Advocate Commissioner. The learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff would further submit that instead of imposing the compensation, this Court may fix reasonable amount as additional remuneration, which would be paid to the Advocate Commissioner for the mental agony suffered by him. 37. Though, in my view, they have committed a serious act of contempt, in view of the affidavit tendering unconditional apology and on the statement of the respective counsel that they would be prepared to pay any reasonable amount by way of additional remuneration instead of compensation, I do not propose to sent them to jail or to impose any fine of them. But, the way in which the Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed by this Court, was treated by both the plaintiff and the first defendant/contemners, has not only caused severe mental agony and suffering to the Advocate Commissioner, but also inflicted grave insult and injury on the judiciary. 38. This Court has the duty to protect the interest of the public in the administration of justice, It is hence entrusted with the powers to punish for contempt of Court, not only in order to protect the right of the public, but also to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury. The object and purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of law Courts in the minds of public. If a common man is led to lose his respect for the Judge, then confidence reposed in the course of justice is rudely shaken. In essence, the law of contempt is the protector of the seat of justice more than a person of the Judge sitting in that seat. 39. This Court in M/s. Elgi Finance Ltd. v. M/s. Corporation Printing Ink Manufacturing Company (2000) I Mad LW (Crl) 350 referring to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court held that while holding the contemner guilty of contempt, this Court would empower to direct the contemner to pay compensation in addition to the punishment provided under the Contempt of Courts Act. 40. The various interim reports filed by the Advocate Commissioner would clearly indicate that the Advocate Commissioner, an officer of the Court, has been subjected to untold misery and mental agony. The learned counsel for the contemners are prepared to pay any reasonable amount as additional remuneration. But, any amount of additional remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner, in my view, would not compensate the insult and injury which he was subjected to. However, the ends of justice would be met by directing the plaintiff and the first defendant, the contemners, to pay some substantial amount as additional remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner, as this would certainly make the contemners to feel the pinch and to fully realise their acts so that at least in the future, they would show respect to the Officers of the Court and the Court. 41. 41. In that view of the matter, as requested by the counsel for the contemners, it would be appropriate to direct both the contemners to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- each to the Advocate Commissioner within four weeks from today. As requested by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, this amount could be paid subject to the deduction of tax. 42. At the end, I cannot but record my appreciation in this Order the patience, courage, honesty and fearlessness shown by Mr. Sudhakar, the Advocate Commissioner in his sincere efforts to execute the order of this Court by taking risk to his life by undertaking journey with agony on several occasions to Kamudhi to seize the vehicles from the former M.L.A. 43. With the above observations, the contempt application is closed. Order accordingly.