Sanjay Misra, J.;- Dr. Govind Prasad the applicant has appeared in person and has argued these two contempt petitions. Learned Standing Counsel has been heard. 2. Contempt Petition No. 3801 of 2011 (Dr. Govind Prasad Vs Asstt. S.D.M., Ram Narain Patel) alleges contempt against the opposite party Sri Ram Narain Patel, Assistant S.D.M. Fatehpur for the reason that the opposite party has passed an order dated 20.7.2011 recalling an earlier order in the case pending before him on payment of Rs. 100/- as costs. It has been stated that the opposite party should have proceeded with the case exparte and pronounced his judgment since there is no provision for correction of an order and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for cost based adjournments. It is also stated that the opposite party should have seen whether he had any jurisdiction to do so under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a supplementary affidavit the order sheet of the case has been filed as annexure. 3. The submission of the applicant is that a Case No. 37 of 2006 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was filed on 22.02.2006 before the S.D.M. Fatehpur. On 30.03.2010 the court directed to proceed exparte against the second party and fixed 19.04.2010 for evidence of the first party. Thereafter several dates were fixed and ultimately by an order dated 20.07.2011 the opposite party has allowed the applications dated 07.02.2011 and 09.02.2011 filed by the second party on payment of cost of Rs. 100/- and is now proceeding with the case by permitting the second party to participate in the proceedings. It is also submitted that the earlier order dated 30.03.2010 was passed by the S.D.M. and thereafter the case was transferred to the court of Assistant S.D.M. who could not recall the order passed by the S.D.M. his superior officer. 4. Contempt Petition No. 3803 of 2011 (Dr. Govind Prasad Vs D.M. Sri Gurprasad And SDM Sri Ram Chandra) alleges contempt against the District Magistrate, Fatehpur and the S.D.M. Fatehpur. This contempt petition also arises out of Case No. 37 of 2006 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The allegation is similar but further that the case was transferred from the court of S.D.M. which prevented to S.D.M. from pronouncing the judgment. 5. This contempt petition also arises out of Case No. 37 of 2006 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The allegation is similar but further that the case was transferred from the court of S.D.M. which prevented to S.D.M. from pronouncing the judgment. 5. While considering the submission made by the applicant it appears that according to him the order passed by the Assistant S.D.M. on 20.07.2011 is without jurisdiction for two reasons. Firstly, that it amounts to a review of the earlier order dated 30.03.2010 and secondly that an Assistant S.D.M. could not recall an order passed by the S.D.M. who is senior to the Assistant S.D.M. 6. This submission of the applicant does not require any consideration by this court in its contempt jurisdiction. In case the applicant alleges that the order is without jurisdiction and illegal he can avail the remedy available to him in law against such orders. The contempt court cannot adjudicate on the legality or illegality of an order passed in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. 7. In so far as transfer of the case ordered by the District Magistrate from the court of S.D.M. to the court of Assistant S.D.M. in case the applicant alleges any illegality in such transfer order he can always assail such order of transfer if permissible in law. Transfer of a case from one court to another court cannot be a contempt even if malafide is alleged. 8. Therefore. both these contempt petitions are totally misconceived and appear to have been filed for some oblique motives. The applicant alleges to be a retired scientist from CSIR and claims to be of 70 years of age and has been heard uninterrupted till he stated that he has nothing more to argue. On his request the matter has been fixed for today i.e. 27.09.2011 since he appears in person. 9. Both the contempt petitions have been reported to be not maintainable by the report dated 29.07.2011 of the Stamp Reporter. 10. There is no circumstance or act of commission or omission of the opposite parties whereby it can even remotely be inferred that they have in any manner passed orders that have interfered with due course of justice. The proceedings are still pending before the authority and the ordersheet indicates that final arguements have not yet been heard hence any delay in the proceedings cannot be attributed to the court below. The proceedings are still pending before the authority and the ordersheet indicates that final arguements have not yet been heard hence any delay in the proceedings cannot be attributed to the court below. On 18.08.2011 the lawyers had abstained from work. Both the contempt petitions are hereby rejected. No order is passed as to costs.