Judgment :- D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMARJ. 1. This Contempt petition has its origin in the order dated 5.8.2006 passed in W.P.No.7518/2003 [KLR]. The Contempt Petition has elicited the attention of this Court and has been pending before this Court for the past about 8 months having been filed on 13.3.2009 complaining dis-obedeince of the order dated 5.8.2006. 2. While per se, the contempt petition is barred by limitation being a petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act beyond the period of one year from the date of cause of action, the proceedings having come to this stage particularly this Court having kept open the question of limitation as per the order dated 29.5.2009 and having issued notice to the accused-respondents and the further orders on 26.10.2009 and all the subsequent developments are all reflected in our order dated 20.11.2009, reading as under: - "DVSKJ&KNKJ: C.C.C1333/09 20.11.2009 ORDER This contempt petition is listed before the court for reporting compliance as this court expressed a doubt about the respondents having complied with the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, notwithstanding the fact that the affidavit dated 3.11.2009 sworn to by Ranganath, Tahsildar, Bhalki, Bidar District is countered on an earlier occasion and as indicated by this court as per the order dated 4.11.2009 which is as under: KLMJ&AKJ: C.C.C1333/09 04.11.2009 ORDER Affidavit is filed by the Tahsildar, Bhalki, stating that he has complied with the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that the respondents have not complied with the direction issued, and the affidavit filed is incorrect. Wehave heard the learned counsel for the parties. After looking into the affidavit and the documents produced along with it, it is clear that the authorities have not complied with the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner which is produced at Annexure-A along with the contempt petition. At this stage, learned Govt. Advocate submits that a week's time be granted to the authorities to comply with the exercise in terms of the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 31.10.1997. 2.) When this matter had been listed on 18.11.2009, at the request of Sri Kumman, learned Addl. Government Advocate, it was adjourned to this day. 3.) We have heard Sri Deshpande, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Kumman representing the State, The Tahsildar is also present. 2.) When this matter had been listed on 18.11.2009, at the request of Sri Kumman, learned Addl. Government Advocate, it was adjourned to this day. 3.) We have heard Sri Deshpande, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Kumman representing the State, The Tahsildar is also present. 4.) The Tahsildar states that notices in fact had been issued to the parties for conducting survey as per the notice dated 5.11.2009, fixing the date of survey to be on 11.11.2009. Notices had been sent to them by speed post and also by courier service through Desk-to-Desk Courier & Cargo Service. While the notice sent by speed post has not returned and is presumed to have been served, the notice sent through courier has been returned with the endorsement 'party refused'. If such is the conduct of the complainant that itself disentitles him to prosecute this complaint, particularly as contempt is not a matter of right. Though mere issue of notice is not the compliance of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, nevertheless, it indicates that the Tahsildar has initiated action for implementation of the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 5.) However, to satisfy ourselves, whether the survey in fact goes through, and to fully satisfy the bona fides of the complainant in invoking contempt jurisdiction and also to verify action if any is still warranted against the respondents/accused, we direct the matter be re-listed on 8th December 2009 by which time it is submitted that the survey which is now re-fixed to 3.12.2009 will also be carried out and the next date of survey is indicated not only to Sri Deshpande, learned counsel for the complainant, but also the complainant's son, Sri Vinodkumar Lohia who is present before the court, to participate in the enquiry and make their representation at the time of survey. 6.) The Tahsildar to appear before this court on 8.12.2009 along with records. He is specifically directed to secure such of those records which indicate acquisition proceedings in respect of Old Survey No.249 and New Nos.179 to 184, Bhalki. Sri Deshpande also submits that he would place before the court encumbrance certificates from the years 1959 onwards upto date in respect of the said property which will be very relevant to appreciate the bona fides of the complainant in filing the writ petition and further action in the form of contempt proceedings. Sri Deshpande also submits that he would place before the court encumbrance certificates from the years 1959 onwards upto date in respect of the said property which will be very relevant to appreciate the bona fides of the complainant in filing the writ petition and further action in the form of contempt proceedings. List this appeal on 8th December 2009." 3. The further significant development as noticed on 16.12.2009 are as under:- "DVSKJ & KNKJ: 16.12.2009 This contempt petition is listed today as per our order dated 14.12.2009 as under: "DVSKJ & KNKJ: 14.12.2009 Mr. Ameet Kumar Deshpande submits he has just received the additional affidavit on behalf of the State. Hence, list on 16.12.2009." 2.) After the learned Additional Government Advocate had filed the Additional affidavit of one Sri Ranganath S/o. Kenchappa, Tahsildar, Bhalki Taluk, Bidar District a copy had been furnished to Mr.Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel for the complainant 3.) Today, Mr. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, again requests for some more time, particularly for filing his objections to the survey report which is enclosed to the Additional affidavit of the Tahsildar and figures as Annexure R-7. Annexures R-8, R-9 and R-10 as related documents. 4.) To the affidavit is enclosed some more documents Annexure R-11 -Encumbrance certificate, Annexure R-12 Pahani Patrika of 1961-62, Annexure R-13 Register of building, Annexure R-14 Acquisition of land for MM. Court at Bhalki, Annexures R-15 and R-16 are Civil Dispensary copy and Annexure R-17 Hostel building register copy. 5.) We find that the request for adjournment of the petition for the reason that the complainant wants to file his objections to the survey report is not a tenable one and it is not for this court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the survey report more so while exercising contempt jurisdiction and therefore the request for granting time to file objection to the surveyor's report is rejected. 6.) However, we direct the matter to be listed on 17.12.2009 and direct the presence of the complainant also. Mr. Ameet Kumar Deshpande submits that it is only the complainant's son one Mr. Vinod kumar, is present before the court to day on behalf of the complainant 7.) It is open to the complainant to be present before this Court on 17.12.2009 with or without his son. List this matter on 17.12.2009." 4. Mr. Ameet Kumar Deshpande submits that it is only the complainant's son one Mr. Vinod kumar, is present before the court to day on behalf of the complainant 7.) It is open to the complainant to be present before this Court on 17.12.2009 with or without his son. List this matter on 17.12.2009." 4. In the wake of the earlier developments, it is now obvious that the Contempt Petition does not survive for further examination and such is the submission of Mr. Deshpande, who submits that the Contempt Petition may be closed as not warranting any further action particularly in the wake of respondents-accused having complied with the order by conducting the survey, whether to the liking of the Complainant or otherwise. 5. We had kept the matter open for only examining as to whether this is also a fit case whether the hunter becomes hunted and the Complainant getting transposed to the position of accused, as we had a bonafide doubt as to whether the Complainant had approached this Court in the first instance for invoking the writ jurisdiction and later to invoke the contempt jurisdiction with bonafides and with an legitimate grievances etc. 6. Though we were inclined to cause issue of show cause notice against the Complainant himself for misusing and abusing the jurisdiction of this Court particularly for invoking writ jurisdiction in respect of a cause for which no Writ of Mandamus could ever been issued, Sri Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant has brought to our notice the authority of law, as per the opinion of Privy Council reported in AIR 1936 Privy Council 269 in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY PRESIDENCY AND ADEN AND OTHERS VERSUS BOMBAY TRUST CORPORATION, LTD, what would constitute the subject matter of issue of Writ of Mandus with the following observations:- "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx But, against the servants of the Crown, as such, and merely to enforce the satisfaction of claims upon the Crown, it is an established rule that a mandamus will not lie. I call this an established rule. I believe it has never been broken in upon. The doctrine is well illustrated by that decision and by the cases therein mentioned, but is even more fully expounded in (1872) 7 Q B 387 (5). I call this an established rule. I believe it has never been broken in upon. The doctrine is well illustrated by that decision and by the cases therein mentioned, but is even more fully expounded in (1872) 7 Q B 387 (5). The principle is that the Court cannot claim even in appearance to command the Crown, and where an obligation is cast upon the principal the Court cannot enforce it against the servant merely as such. Before mandamus can issue to a public servant it must therefore be shown that a duty towards the applicant has been imposed upon the public servant by statute so that he can be charged thereon, and independently of any duty which as servant he may owe to the Crown, his principal. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax, either generally or under S. 66, sub-s. 5, Income-tax Act, is in this position as regards the refund of tax paid under an invalid assessment is the question raised by CI (g), S. 45, Specific Relief Act. This their Lordships do not find it necessary in the present case to decide: nor do they discuss the question whether in view of what Lord Phillimore said in 50 I A 227 (6), the assessees were in any difficulty by reason of S. 106 (2), Government of India Act, or had any other specific and adequate legal remedy [of. CI (d), S. 45, Specific Relief Act, S. 67, Income tax Act, S. 32, Government of India Act]. Before the assessees had brought their application on 23rd August 1934, there was in existence the order under S. 49 (A) based upon the fresh assessment of 20Lh February. To get rid of that order it was necessary that proceedings should be taken under S. 27, and it was not open to the assessees to apply to the Court direct for an order setting aside that assessment or the set off made thereunder. The assessees' application had contained Cls. (b) and (c) whereby an order was asked directing the Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the appeal and the Income-tax Officer to dispose of the application under S. 27. No order was made by the learned Judges of the High Court in respect of Cl. The assessees' application had contained Cls. (b) and (c) whereby an order was asked directing the Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the appeal and the Income-tax Officer to dispose of the application under S. 27. No order was made by the learned Judges of the High Court in respect of Cl. (c) of the application, and their Lordships do not consider that it was open to the learned Judges of the High Court to direct a refund to be made, or the necessary steps to be taken in that regard, so long as the fresh assessment stood. Their Lordships are, therefore, of opinion that the order of the High Court, dated 19th September 1934, should be set aside and that the parties should pay their own costs of that application. They will humbly advise His Majesty to that effect and that subject thereto this consolidated appeal should be dismissed. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency and Aden, must pay to the Bombay Trust Corporation, Limited, two-thirds of their costs in the consolidated appeal." 7. We are of the view that, an initial apprehension as to whether a writ of mandamus, could have been in the first instance issued at all is only fortified by the opinion of the privy Council, as extracted above. Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel on the facts pursuaded not causing issue of a show cause notice on contempt jurisdiction for the reason that the writ petition had bonafide abuse the Court have the relief only to enforce the direction that had been issued by the Deputy Commissioner to its subordinates and for not improving of any of his rights in respect of the property, which is undoubtedly a subject matter for civil litigation and in a suit and that the Complainant had never tried to seek any right, but himself even in invoking writ jurisdiction and more so as there was an inaction on the part of the respondents-accused, as a matter of course has invoked the contempt jurisdiction not with any ulterior motive etc. 8. Submission though is not totally convincing us and we are still left with a lingering doubt as to the bonafides of the Complainant in approaching this Court both for invoking the writ jurisdiction and later the contempt jurisdiction. 8. Submission though is not totally convincing us and we are still left with a lingering doubt as to the bonafides of the Complainant in approaching this Court both for invoking the writ jurisdiction and later the contempt jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the Complainant himself has submitted that assuming without admitting that there was any lack of bonafides on the part of the writ petitioner /complainant, this is not a case to go beyond dismissing the contempt petition by compensating the respondents-accused and the Complainant at his advanced stage of 80 years with considerable ailments be spared further possible action in contempt jurisdiction. 9. We have bestowed our serious thought to the submission made at the bar. 10. We accept the submission at its face value without going further into it, but cannot avoid observing that a late contempt jurisdiction is being invoked in a casual manner and even when there is no definite purpose to be served and when no case of contumacian conduct on the part of respondents-accused is made out. 11. We also notice in this petition that responsibility for contumacian disregard of Court order is not being pin-pointed to any of the accused persons, but related to them in vague and in general terms and even those who have nothing to do with the direction part of the Court order arrayed by the Complainant as accused/respondents. 12. We strongly deprecate this tendency and only to send a clear and loud message, we impose commensurate cost on the complaint for not only impleading unnecessary persons as accused in the contempt petition, but also for the inconvenience and trails caused to the accused, who are made to undertake journeys to this Court, leaving their normal work. 13. We award cost of Rs.2,000/-in respect of each of the accused persons and in respect of Mr. Ranganath, the present Tahsildar in Bhalki Taluk, Bhalki, who has undertaken journey to this Court and appeared for not less than 8 times before this Court and as confirmed by Sri S.S. Kumman, earned AGA, a further cost of Rs.8,000/-is awarded in favour of Ranganath by fixing Rs. 1,000/-each for his appearance before his Court as compensatory cost and a like amount in favour of Mr. Shivaji Rao Suryavanshi, Village Accountant, Bhalki, who has also made 8 appearances before this Court. 1,000/-each for his appearance before his Court as compensatory cost and a like amount in favour of Mr. Shivaji Rao Suryavanshi, Village Accountant, Bhalki, who has also made 8 appearances before this Court. This is in addition to the sum Rs.2,000/-awarded in favour of each of the four accused persons as costs in general. 14. Cost as indicated above to be deposited before this Court within four weeks from today, whereupon the respondents-accused persons are entitled to draw the amount through the Addl. Government Advocate and the Registry is directed to issue cheques in the names of the four accused persons for the amount as indicated above. 15. Contempt proceedings against accused persons are dropped, and this Contempt Petition is dismissed as not surviving any further.