A. R. LAKSHAMANAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ravikanth Somisetti, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and sri A. Venkata Ramana, the learned government Pleader, for the respondents. ( 2 ) INDIRA Seva Sadan has filed this writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents not to either appear for or defend any of the contemnors viz. , 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents at the expense of public funds. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the 1st respondent, Deputy Secretary to Government, Law department, has filed counter-affidavit stating that directing a public servant to do a particular thing or to act in accordance with the directions of the Court is a command to a State. A command to a State, in fact, is a command to those who are officially in-charge and responsible for conducting the affairs of the State. Further state is a person within the meaning of order VIX Rule 2 (3) of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908, and as such, it is susceptible to the liabilities contemplated by it and cannot escape the vicarious liability for the action of its public servants, who execute the orders of the Court in their compliance. Hence, the public servants have to be defended by the State for they act under the authority of the State in their official capacity in enforcing the orders of the Court. Defending the action of public servants is the duty of the State, and the state in order to defend the public servants can utilize the services of Government pleaders or any Law Officers in the respective Courts, and such action of the state is neither against the public policy nor contrary to any law provided under any statute. In other words, when an order is passed against a State, the said order is binding and enforceable not merely against the persons or nominees impleaded as parties to the suit and against whom the order is passed, but also against the agents and servants of such parties. If the agents and servants of the State are not made a party to the contempt proceedings by name, then the order of the Court would be rendered nugatory for the State by itself is an abstract entity, and its representatives are its agents and servants, and that is why the representatives of the State are called public servants. If the agents and servants of the State are not made a party to the contempt proceedings by name, then the order of the Court would be rendered nugatory for the State by itself is an abstract entity, and its representatives are its agents and servants, and that is why the representatives of the State are called public servants. Since the actions of the public servants are public in nature, they have to be defended by the State with public funds. If the public servants personally are liable for contempt for deliberately violating the orders of the court, then the court will impose fine or send them to civil prison, and in such an event, the person who is named in the contempt petition, is only liable to pay the fine from his pocket and is liable to serve the sentence if he is sent to civil prison, and on their behalf, neither the law Officers can be directed to pay the fine amount nor can they be sent to civil prison, and to this extent, persons who are holding public posts are liable personally for contempt, that too, if they are found guilty. In contempt cases, engaging Government pleaders or the Advocate General, as the case may be, to defend the public servants at the cost and expense of the public fund, is neither illegal nor against the public policy. ( 4 ) ON behalf of 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents, the Commissioner, endowments Department, filed counter- affidavit stating that the contention of the petitioner that the Advocate General receives remuneration from public funds and that public funds should be spent only for protection of public interest and not private interest and the interest of any private individual, is not correct. Public servants who perform/discharge their functions in the course of their official duties are not private individuals. Every order passed by the public servants is only in the course of discharge of their public duties and not in their individual capacity. Merely because they are impleaded by name, it cannot be said that the orders passed by them cannot be defended by the advocate General or by the Government pleader. The alleged contemnor is impleaded by name because the State or the department under which he is working, cannot be punished for contempt of court In case it is found that orders of the Court have been violated. The alleged contemnor is impleaded by name because the State or the department under which he is working, cannot be punished for contempt of court In case it is found that orders of the Court have been violated. Hence, it cannot be said that the public servants passing the orders in their official capacity cannot be defended by the State. When a contempt is alleged against the State for the orders passed by its agents or representatives or public servants in discharge of their official duties, the action of such agents or representatives or public servants, is deemed to be a State action, and as such, their action has to be defended either by the Advocate General or government Pleader, as the case may be. Therefore, it cannot be said that the action of the agents or representatives or public servants cannot be defended from out of the public funds of the State. ( 5 ) I have read the petitioner s affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, as also the statements made by the respondents in their counters, and I am of the opinion, that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced. The State is an abstract entity. Its day-to-day administration is carried on by its agents or representatives or public servants. It is therefore, the duty of the State to defend the actions of its agents or representatives or public servants which they perform or discharge in the course of their official duties, and while defending such actions, the State can make use of the services of the Advocate General or the government Pleader, as the case may be. whose salaries are paid from out of the public funds. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has not made out any case for interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition has no merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.