Judgment : Heard both sides. 2. This contempt application is filed to punish the respondent who is the Commissioner appointed by this Court to administer the Alwarpet Benefit Fund Limited, Chennai-18 for having allegedly disobeyed the directions of this court in WPMP No.2191 of 2007 in W.P.No.14577 of 1999, dated 1.12.2008. 3. When the contempt petition came up on 13.3.2009, this court ordered notice to be served on the respondent. Accordingly, a registered notice was sent by the petitioner both to respondent as well as the counsel appearing for the Commissioner. When the matter came up on 17.6.2010, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.Subbareddy that they are not interested in pursuing the contempt petition and that the matter has been settled in the writ appeal. Therefore, they may be permitted to withdraw the contempt petition. When once notice was directed to be served on respondent, it is not as if the petitioner can withdraw the contempt petition at his will. In any contempt proceedings, the petitioners role is only in the nature of an informer and after setting the law in motion, he can only assist the court. In view of the fact that the petitioner has filed a frivolous and vexatious petition against a retired Judge of this court, who is functioning under the orders of this court to administer the Alwarpet Benefit Fund Ltd, this court did not want to close the proceedings without inflicting cost on the petitioner. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition, there is no averment that the respondent had committed any willful disobedience of the orders of this court, thereby giving a cause of action to file the contempt petition. It must be noted that the Alwarpet Benefit Fund Ltd, which was run by its erstwhile Directors, had cheated many depositors and it gave rise to a writ petition being filed before this court. In the writ petition, this court in order to alleviate the sufferings of the depositors decided to administer the fund with a court appointed Commissioner. 5. During the tenure of the earlier Commissioner, certain properties in Thaiyyur village (Kancheepuram District) to an extent of 2.78 acres were brought up for auction. The petitioner became the highest bidder having quoted to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.8,75,70,000/-. 5. During the tenure of the earlier Commissioner, certain properties in Thaiyyur village (Kancheepuram District) to an extent of 2.78 acres were brought up for auction. The petitioner became the highest bidder having quoted to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.8,75,70,000/-. At the time of confirmation, he was given permission to pay it in installments. He had paid less than 50% of the amount, i.e. Rs.4 Crores. Subsequently, he was given several extensions contrary to the original notice inviting tender (NIT). In order to fetch income for the Fund, the earlier Commissioner granted liberal extensions of time. However, when the matter was brought to the notice of the Court on 1.12.2008, this court rejected the plea of the petitioner seeking for 50% of the property to be sold to him on the basis of his earlier payments. This Court felt that if the offer is accepted, then it would amount to violating the notice inviting tender. 6. This court vide its order dated 1.12.2008, in paragraphs 6 to 8 ordered as follows: "6.In the light of the same, the offer made to B.Masthan Rao for the purchase of Thaiyur property (2.78 acres) by orders of this Court dated 03.4.2007 will stand cancelled. The EMD amount of Rs.50,00,000/- paid by him will stand forfeited. 7. The Commissioner is permitted to return the sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- (four crores) to B.Masthan Rao without any interest accrued if any on the said amount. 8. The Commissioner is also permitted to take steps to advertise the sale of the Thaiyur property once again in two leading newspapers (one in English and the other in Tamil, preferably "The Hindu" and "The Dina Mani") notifying the purchasers to offer their claims by sealed tenders." 7. As can be seen from paragraph 7, this court did not fix any time limit for the return of the amount mainly because that involved certain administrative work as well as the ready availability of funds deposited by the petitioner. Though the counsel for the petitioner sought for fixing a time limit, this court declined to do so as it may involve further complications. But, the petitioner knowing these facts served a notice on the Commissioner and filed the contempt petition in January, 2009. It was brought for admission during March, 2009. 8. Though the counsel for the petitioner sought for fixing a time limit, this court declined to do so as it may involve further complications. But, the petitioner knowing these facts served a notice on the Commissioner and filed the contempt petition in January, 2009. It was brought for admission during March, 2009. 8. It is also seen from the records that the petitioner had filed a writ appeal against the very same order in W.A.No.318 of 2009. Aggrieved by the order passed by this court, the Commissioner also filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.392 of 2009. When both appeals came up for hearing on 22.4.2009, a division bench of this court recorded a joint memo of compromise filed by both parties. By the agreement 1.62 acres were to be sold to the petitioner at a cost of Rs.5,10,30,000/-. The two writ appeals were disposed of and the order passed by this court stood modified. Therefore, there is no question of alleged disobedience of any order so as to enable the petitioner to pursue his contempt petition. Hence, the request for withdrawal was made before this Court. 9. But, the larger question looms to be answered in this case is whether the petitioner was right in filing a contempt petition against a retired Judge of this court, who on being persuaded by this court had accepted to be the Commissioner to administer the Alwarpet Benefit Fund Ltd. 10. When the Commissioner had not made any willful disobedience of the order of this court, the question of filing any contempt did not arise and such an action cannot be entertained by this court. If the petitioner wanted any direction to the Commissioner, he should have filed an appropriate application seeking for a direction to the Commissioner. It must be noted that at this juncture, the Commissioner had made appropriate applications for proceeding with all transactions including selling the properties or for rejecting the offers made to purchase the property. In the absence of any personal allegation or without any averment that there was willful disobedience of the order passed by this court, the petitioners attempt to file such a contempt petition against a retired Judge of this court acting as Commissioner is a clear abuse of process of the Court. Such a conduct on the part of the petitioner cannot be condoned. Such a conduct on the part of the petitioner cannot be condoned. If such actions are allowed as a matter of course, then no retired Judge of this court would ever agree to offer themselves to render their service in administering such Funds. This court had exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction so as to alleviate the sufferings of thousands of depositors, who have lost their hard earned money with the expectations to get it back. 11. Even otherwise, for the maintenance of an application to punish for contempt under Section 11, the petitioner should satisfy the ingredients of a civil contempt. Only in cases of willful disobedience, a contempt petition can be numbered and entertained. 12. In the present case, no time limit was fixed for the return of the amounts and hence the question of disobedience will not arise. Even otherwise, there is no attribution of any motive on the part of the respondent Commissioner to violate the order of this court. Therefore, this court is not inclined to entertain the contempt filed by the petitioner with an ulterior motive. Hence the contempt petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 13. In the light of the above, this contempt petition will stand dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as an exemplary costs to the respondent for having filed a frivolous petition and for wasting the time of this court. The cost shall be paid within four weeks from today.