S. P. MEHROTRA, J. The present Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is, inter alia, prayed that the opposite party be punished for having committed contempt of this Court by flouting the order dated 13-2-1991 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17959 of 1990, Peetam and others v. The Executive Officer, Municipal Board Auriya, District Etawah and another. 2. By the Order dated 9-3-1995, notice was directed to be issued to the opposite party to show-cause as to why he be not punished for having committed contempt of this Court by flouting the order dated 13- 2-1991 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17959 of 1990. 3. The said Order dated 9-3-1995 is re-produced below: "heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the Contempt Petition, affidavit and its annexures. Since I find a prima facie case for the alleged contempt of Court, hence it is ordered. Issue notice to Sri Satish Chandra Tripathi, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Auraiya, District Etawah, directing him to appear in person on 3-8-1995 or through the learned Counsel stating on oath all the facts as to why he shall not be prosecuted for the alleged contempt of Court for flouting of the Honble Courts order dated 13-2-1991 passed in W. P. No. 17959 of 1990. Respondent is directed to make all endeavour to see that the Honble Courts order has been complied with ". 4. It appears that pursuant to the said Order dated 9-3-1995, notice was issued to the opposite party. 5. Office submitted its Report dated 1-8-1995 regarding service of the said notice issued to the opposite party on the contempt petition. The said Office Report dated 1-8-1995 is quoted below: "in view of Courts order doled 9-3-1995. Notice issued to sole Opposite Party fixing 3-8-1995vide Courts letter No. 5854 dated 26-6-1995 has not yet been received back after service. The case is put up for order". 6. In view of the said Office Report dated 1-8-1995, the Court by its Order dated 4-8-1995, inter alia, directed for issuance of reminder fixing 18-9-1995. The said Order dated 4-8-1995 is re-produced below: "issue reminder fixing 18th September, 1995. " 7. It appears that in view of the said Order dated 4-8-1995, Reminder was issued fixing 18-9-1995. 8. 6. In view of the said Office Report dated 1-8-1995, the Court by its Order dated 4-8-1995, inter alia, directed for issuance of reminder fixing 18-9-1995. The said Order dated 4-8-1995 is re-produced below: "issue reminder fixing 18th September, 1995. " 7. It appears that in view of the said Order dated 4-8-1995, Reminder was issued fixing 18-9-1995. 8. Office submitted its Report dated 14-9-1995 in regard to the said Reminder issued pursuant to the said Order dated 4-8-1995. The said Office Report dated 14-9-1995 is quoted below: "in view of Courts order dated 4-8-1995. Reminder issued to C. J. M. Etawah fixing 18-9-1995 vide Courts letter No. 8947 dated 5-9-1995 has not yet been received back served notice. The case is put up for order". 9. It appears that the case was put up before the Court on 18-9- 1995 with the said office Report dated 14-9-1995. However, on the said date, i. e. , 18-9-1995, the case was passed over on account of illness- slip of Sri Yashpal Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner-applicant. 10. The case was thereafter, put up before the Court on 25-5-2004 with the Office Report dated 24-5- 2004. It may be mentioned that during the intervening period from 18-9-1995 to 24-5-2004, no order appears to have been passed on the question of service of notice on the opposite party on the contempt petition. 11. It is, thus, not possible to verify as to whether notice issued by the Office pursuant to the said Order dated 9-3-1995 was actually tendered on the opposite party. 12. No prayer appears to have been made on behalf of the petitioner-applicant for taking fresh steps for issuance of notice to the opposite party. 13. When the case was listed on 25-5-2004, it was reported to the Court that Sri Yashpal Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner-applicant had expired. 14. In the circumstances, the Court passed the following Order on 25-5-2004: "sri Yashpal Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioners- applicants is reported to have expired. Office is directed to issue notice to the petitioners applicants to engage another Counsel. Notices will be issued fixing a date in the week commencing 20-9-2004 ". 15. It appears that pursuant to the said Order dated 25-5-2004, notice was issued to the petitioners- applicants to engage another Counsel. 16. Office is directed to issue notice to the petitioners applicants to engage another Counsel. Notices will be issued fixing a date in the week commencing 20-9-2004 ". 15. It appears that pursuant to the said Order dated 25-5-2004, notice was issued to the petitioners- applicants to engage another Counsel. 16. Office submitted its Report dated 18-9-2004 in regard to the service of notice issued to the petitioners-applicants pursuant to the said Order dated 25-5-2004. The said Office Report dated 18-9- 2004 is quoted below: "pursuant Honble Courts order dated 22-5-2004 Notice issued to petitioners engage another Counsel fixing 20-9-2004. Petitioner No. 1 Peetam S/o. Saiku ki mrityu ho gayi hai. Petitioner No. 2 ka service report has been served. The case is put up for orders. " 17. It is evident from the above-quoted Office Report dated 18-9- 2004 that the petitioner-applicant No. 1 has expired. 18. As regards the petitioner-applicant No. 2, it is evident that the notice has been served on him. 19. In view of the said Office Report dated 18-9-2004, the Court passed the Order dated 20-9-2004. The said Order dated 20-9-2004 is quoted below: "perused the office report dated 18th Sept. , 2004. Office is directed to submit report as to whether any learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner-applicant No. 2 pursuant to the service of notice stated to have been issued to the petitioner-applicant No. 2, as directed by the order dated 25th May, 2004. List in the week commencing 16th Nov. , 2004". 20. Pursuant to the said Order dated 20-9-2004, the Office has submitted the following Report dated 10- 11-2004. "reference Honble Courts order dated 20-9-2004 it is submitted that nobody has put in appearance on behalf of petitioner -applicant No. 2 as per record. With above submission, the case is put up for order". 21. From the above discussion, it is evident that while the petitioner applicant No. 1 has expired, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner-applicant No. 2 despite service of notice pursuant to the said Order dated 25-5-2004. 22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances narrated above, the Court has no option but to dismiss the contempt petition for want of prosecution. 23. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution. 24. Show-cause notice issued to the opposite party is discharged. Petition dismissed. .