Judgment :- M.Y. Eqbal, C.J. 1. The instant Contempt Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent, District Collector, Tiruvallur District punishing for willfully disobeying the order dated 20.07.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3013 of 2009. 2. The Office has returned the papers with a note that the Petitioner must give the name of the District Collector against whom Contempt proceeding needs to be initiated. The Office has also doubted the maintainability of the Contempt Petition on the ground of defective cause title. Hence, the record has been placed before us. 3. Mr. R. Muthukrishnan, Petitioner-in-Person strenuously challenged the office note and submitted that the same is illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. He submitted that in Contempt proceeding Petitioner is not required under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to disclose the name of the person who committed contempt. There is no provision under the Rules of the Madras High Court regulating the Contempt proceedings to present the contemnor by name. He further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in one case by the order dated 04.10.2001 directed the Registry not to entertain any Contempt Application unless the contemnor is specifically named. In the said order the Registry was directed to issue circular to that effect, but no such circular has been issued till date. Petitioner/Party-in-Person contended that this Contempt Petition can be presented against the authority without specifying the name of such authority who has committed contempt. 4. The short question that falls for consideration is whether a Contempt Petition can be entertained and is maintainable even though filed against the State or the authority i.e., the District Collector without specifying the name as to who was the person acting as Collector violated the order of this Court. 5. The foundation of judiciary is the trust and confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. The purpose of Contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of Law. The Contempt jurisdiction is to be exercised to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. Every High Court has jurisdiction to punish for contempt. This special jurisdiction is inherent in a Court of Record from the very nature of the Court itself. The purpose of Contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of Law. The Contempt jurisdiction is to be exercised to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. Every High Court has jurisdiction to punish for contempt. This special jurisdiction is inherent in a Court of Record from the very nature of the Court itself. Article 215 of the Constitution of India vests the High Court with all the powers of Courts of Record, including the power to punish for contempt by itself. All that is necessary is that procedure must be fair and contemnor is made aware of the charge against him and given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 6. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines the word “Civil Contempt” which means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. According to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act a contemnor may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may exceed to six months or with fine or with both. For better appreciation Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act is quoted herein below: “12. Punishment for Contempt of Court.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the Accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court. Explanation – An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the Accused makes it bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no Court shall impose a sentence excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a Court subordinate to it. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no Court shall impose a sentence excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a Court subordinate to it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Section, where a person is found guilty of a Civil contempt, the Court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a Civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit. (4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of Court in respect of any undertaking given to a Court is a Company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the Company, as well as the Company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced with the leave of the Court, by the detention in Civil prison of each such person: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of Court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the Court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer. Explanation – For the purpose of such-sections (4) and (5) – (a) “Company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner is the firm.” 7. Explanation – For the purpose of such-sections (4) and (5) – (a) “Company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner is the firm.” 7. From a bare perusal of the Section, it is manifestly clear that the aforesaid provision contemplates fair and reasonable opportunity to be given to a person to defend before holding him guilty of contempt. There must be personal service of notice of the order of the Court for compliance. 8. In Halsbury’s Law of England, (Forth Edition, Vol.9) para 467, which speaks of “Necessity of Personal Service”, is worth to be noticed, and it reads as under: “As a general rule, no order of Court requiring a person to do or abstain from doing any act may be enforced unless a copy of the order has been served personally on the person required to do or abstain from doing the act in question. In the case of an order requiring a person to do an act the copy must be so served before the expiration of the time which he was required to do the act. Where the order is made against a company, the order may only be enforced against an officer of the company if the particular officer has been served personally with a copy of the order; and in the case of an order requiring the company to do an act within a specified time, the copy must be served on the officer before the expiration of that time.” 9. Rules to regulate Proceedings for Contempt of Subordinate Courts and of Madras High Court (in short “Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules), also provides for service of notice on the person alleged to have committed contempt. Rule 4 of the said Rules provides that every Application for contempt shall be in a form of a Petition accompanied by an Affidavit specifying the details of the contempt alleged together with all documents in support thereof. Rule 5(4) of the said Rules requires a notice of such Application to the alleged contemnor to appear on a day fixed and there shall be personal service of notice. Such notice requiring the alleged contemnor to appear on the day fixed shall be not less than four weeks from the date of the order. Rule 5(4) of the said Rules requires a notice of such Application to the alleged contemnor to appear on a day fixed and there shall be personal service of notice. Such notice requiring the alleged contemnor to appear on the day fixed shall be not less than four weeks from the date of the order. Rule 9 provides that whenever notice on the Application for contempt to the alleged contemnor is not served, and the Court is satisfied that the person to whom notice is ordered is keeping out of the way to avoid service or has absconded, the Court may order for substituted service. It, further, provides that if the person in contempt cannot be arrested by reason of his absconding or keeping one of the way to avoid arrest, the Court may upon being satisfied thereof grant an order for the attachment of the property of the person in contempt. The Rule, further, provides that every person arrested for contempt shall be brought before the Court forthwith and may be examined orally. 10. From the aforesaid provisions, it is manifestly clear that in a Petition for initiation of contempt, a person against whom contempt is alleged must be made party respondent in person. The word “Person” means a human being, a natural person and not a juristic person, because a human being can commit contempt of Court, and not an authority. It is well settled that a command to a Corporation or to the State or its Authority is, in fact, a command to those persons who are officially responsible for the conduct of its affairs. The person holding the post being informed of the order of the Court for compliance or fails to take appropriate action within their power, they are guilty of disobedience and may be punished for contempt. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is manifestly clear from the Act and Rules, that in a proceeding for contempt, the Petitioner must specify the name of the person, who is guilty of contempt by not complying and thereby violating the order of the Court, in his individual capacity or in the discharge of his official duty. It is manifestly clear from the Act and Rules, that in a proceeding for contempt, the Petitioner must specify the name of the person, who is guilty of contempt by not complying and thereby violating the order of the Court, in his individual capacity or in the discharge of his official duty. In the instant case, for example, if the District Collector alleged to have violated and disobeyed the order of this Court, the Petitioner must disclose the name of the person who, while holding the post of the Collector of the District committed contempt by not obeying or complying with the order. 12. We, therefore, hold that the present Contempt Petition without specifying and disclosing the name and description of the person and without making him as a party respondent for the alleged contempt, is not maintainable. The petition being not in accordance with the Act and the Rules, is, therefore, dismissed.