JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner had filed writ petition in September, 2017 praying for the following reliefs: "A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to make the appointment as vacant post of U.P Cold Storage Tribunal as soon as possible in accordance with law within reasonable time. B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 and 4, that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till the disposal of appeal by the U.P. State Cold Storage Tribunal. C. Issue a writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. D. Award the cost to the petitioner." 2. The Court while entertaining the writ petition on 12.09.2017 passed an order, which is extracted hereunder: "One of the grievance of the petitioner is that the U.P. Cold Storage Tribunal is not functioning on account of non-availability of Member since 2014. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to take instructions from the Secretary, Agriculture and intimate as to why the appointment is not being made on the vacant posts. Put up this matter on Monday i.e. 18.09.2017." 3. Since no instruction was received by the learned Standing Counsel from the Secretary, Agriculture, the Court again passed an order on 18.09.2017 directing the learned Standing Counsel to ensure that an affidavit be filed by the Secretary, Agriculture. The order dated 18.09.2017 is extracted hereunder: "List this matter on 05.10.2017. In the meanwhile, learned Standing Counsel will ensure that the Secretary, Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow will file his affidavit." 4. Inspite of the aforesaid order the affidavit was not filed. However, the Court granted further indulgence and by an order dated 05.10.2017, the Court granted further two weeks and no more time to file a counter affidavit. The said order is extracted hereunder: "Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed two weeks and no more time to file counter affidavit. List on 27.10.2017." 5. In-spite of the aforesaid order, no counter affidavit was filed. The matter was taken up on 27.10.2017 and again on 01.11.2017, 02.11.2017, 07.11.2017 and finally on 08.11.2017, the following order was passed: "In spite of repeated time being granted and a stop order being passed, no counter affidavit is forthcoming. List on 27.10.2017." 5. In-spite of the aforesaid order, no counter affidavit was filed. The matter was taken up on 27.10.2017 and again on 01.11.2017, 02.11.2017, 07.11.2017 and finally on 08.11.2017, the following order was passed: "In spite of repeated time being granted and a stop order being passed, no counter affidavit is forthcoming. We, accordingly, direct the Secretary, Agriculture to be present before the Court along with the record on 04.12.2017." 6. By the aforesaid order the Secretary, Agriculture was directed to be present in the Court along with the record on 04.12.2017. On 04.12.2017, the Secretary, Agriculture was not present nor the record was sent. The Court observing the aforesaid fact passed the order dated 04.12.2017. 7. Today an affidavit of Lalit Mohan Prasad holding the post of Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture has been filed. The said officer is also present in Court. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit the officer has contended that he could not appear before the Court on account of a meeting held on 04.12.2017 headed by the Chief Secretary. It was contended that nonappearance on 04.12.2017 was neither deliberate nor wilful. 8. The officer has also annexed a Circular dated 22.11.2017, issued by the Special Secretary intimating the fixation of a meeting on 04.12.2017 and has tried to justify his action of non-appearance on account of the said meeting. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit the Officer has further contended that he has noting to do with the controversy involved in the present writ petition as the matter relates to the Horticulture Department and not to the Agriculture Department. 9. If the matter was as simple as has been contended that the Principal Secretary, Agriculture has nothing to do with the controversy and the relevant department is Horticulture Department, such information should have been intimated to the Court on the very first day. But such information was not forthcoming in-spite of the knowledge to the said department and to the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department. The Court is constrained to observe that nothing has been indicated in the affidavit filed today as to why this simple information that the controversy relates to the Horticulture Department could not be supplied to the Court on the previous occasions when the case was listed. The Court is constrained to observe that nothing has been indicated in the affidavit filed today as to why this simple information that the controversy relates to the Horticulture Department could not be supplied to the Court on the previous occasions when the case was listed. Nothing has been indicated as to why the affidavit could not be filed or that the officer was unaware of the orders passed by this Court. Such callousness on the part of the Department and on the part of the Officer is writ large. 10. The Court had directed the Secretary, Agriculture to appear along with the record on 04.12.2017, as per the order of the Court dated 08.11.2017. Sufficient time was given to the officer to make arrangement so that he could appear on the date fixed but the officer chose not to do so. The meeting, which was held on 04.12.2017 headed by the Chief Secretary was fixed on 22.11.2017, much after passing of the order of the Court dated 08.11.2017. Thus, there was no justification on the part of the Officer in not attending the Court on the date fixed. The Officer could have applied for exemption in the meeting, which was scheduled on 04.12.2017 and should have attended the Court on 04.12.2017. Meetings are called by the Chief Secretary and by the State Government on every other day and if this explanation is given it would give a leeway to all officers to circumvent the orders of the Court. 11. In the opinion of the Court, no one is above the law. Everyone whether individually or collectively is under the supremacy of law. The dignity and majesty of the Court cannot be diminished or wiped out by the individual or collective behaviour. Whoever tends to undermine the authority of the Court, will come within the four corners of the contempt proceedings. Powers of contempt are not applied to vindicate the dignity and honour of individual judges. The power of contempt is the only tool of law to uphold the rule of law and affirm the majesty of the courts. 12. In the instant case, it is apparently clear that in-spite of repeated directions, the Officer did not file counter affidavit for reasons best known to him. The power of contempt is the only tool of law to uphold the rule of law and affirm the majesty of the courts. 12. In the instant case, it is apparently clear that in-spite of repeated directions, the Officer did not file counter affidavit for reasons best known to him. He did not have the courtesy to inform the Court that it was the Horticulture Department and not the Agriculture Department, which is involved in the present writ petition. When the Court directed the Officer to be present along with the record, he chose to ignore the said order and did not attend the Court on the date fixed rather he chose to attend the meeting headed by the Chief Secretary. This shows that he has no respect for the majesty of the Court. On this short issue, the Court can initiate contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience of the order of the Court. But the Court will not do so as judicial time cannot be wasted on petty acts of transgression. But permitting such acts to go un-censured would have far reaching consequences adverse to the rule of law. We leave it open to the Chief Secretary to do the needful. 13. Let an order of this Court be placed before the Chief Secretary within 48 hours. 14. Since the Officer has contended that the controversy relates to the Horticulture Department and not to the Agriculture Department, we direct the petitioner to impaled the Horticulture Department as a necessary respondent during the course of the day. 15. The learned Standing is directed to take instruction from the Principal Secretary, Horticulture Department and file an affidavit within 10 days. The Chief Secretary will also file an affidavit in compliance of the order of the Court passed today. List On 20.12.2017.