JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. Before we consider the appeal which arises out of the order dated 29th January, 2018, passed in WP 10902 (W) of 2017 (Ranajit Chatterjee @ Ronojit Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal) on its merit, we notice from the records of the First Court that on 17th November, 2017, the learned Single Judge had granted leave to the Advocate-on-Record of the writ petitioner to add KMDA through its Chief Executive Officer at the appropriate address as party respondent no. 3A in the writ proceeding. The original records, however, reveal that the Advocate-on-Record, instead of complying with the directions of the learned Single Judge, has impleaded one Dr. Saumitra Mohan, IAS, by name and upon describing him to be the Chief Executive Officer, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KIT Wing). 2. We do not appreciate the manner in which the Advocate-on-Record of the writ petitioner (being the respondent no. 1 herein) has sought to interpret the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 17th November, 2017. As such, we deem it fit to impose exemplary costs upon the Advocate-on-Record of the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner so that in future he does not misinterpret an order of the writ Court in such a manner. He shall pay costs assessed at 1000 G.Ms to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal, to be kept earmarked for its utilisation by the Mediation and Conciliation Committee of the High Court within 48 hours from date. 3. Advocate-on-record of the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner shall correct the cause title of the writ petition here and now in the manner as allowed in the order dated 17th November, 2017. In re: CAN 972 of 2018 4. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application as well as the impugned order dated 29th January, 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 10902 (W) of 2017 (Ranajit Chatterjee @ Ronojit Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal), we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and having regard to the directions given by the learned Single Judge as contained in the impugned order, the applicants are required to be granted leave to prefer an appeal against the order. 5. The application for leave to appeal is allowed accordingly. 5. The application for leave to appeal is allowed accordingly. In re: MAT 144 of 2018 with CAN 973 of 2018 6. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. 7. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 29th January, 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 10902 (W) of 2017 (Ranajit Chatterjee @ Ronojit Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal). 8. It has been preferred by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, ATM at Kasba and two Ameens attached to the office of the said Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. The appellants were not the respondents before the writ Court. 9. The reason why this appeal has been preferred appears from a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order dated 29th January, 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge. From the said order, it appears that a sealed report was filed before the learned Single Judge on that day itself by the Special Officer, Sumon Sankar Chatterjee. Upon perusing the same, the learned Single Judge has made certain observations and consequentially issued the following directions:- “The learned Special Officer shall go again to the venue with police help and the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, is commanded to depute an officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner and armed police, who will escort the Special Officer and the Ameens along with all equipments to the concerned site and cause the Ameens, under pain of proceedings for contempt to complete the measurement and comply with my earlier orders within 72 hours from the receipt of the copy of this order. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Deputy Sheriff of this Court. For further proceedings and necessary hearing of the Ameens' explanation as to why proceedings for contempt shall not be drawn up against them suo motu, for deliberate violation and willful disobedience of this Court's said Order, the Ameens shall be heard on the returnable date. The question of whether the Ameens are in Contempt of this Court or not and if so, ought to be punished or not shall be determined at the appropriate stage but after compliance of this order. The question of whether the Ameens are in Contempt of this Court or not and if so, ought to be punished or not shall be determined at the appropriate stage but after compliance of this order. The learned Special Officer shall go once again within the time already mentioned above and ensure compliance of the above orders unless the Ameens still refuse to comply and thereby aggravate the prima facie contempt they have already committed. He shall be entitled to further remuneration of 1000 GMs provided my order is complied with within the time mentioned above for the purpose. The Commissioner of Police shall also ensure that adequate police protection as aforesaid is given to the parties and/or their representatives and learned advocates who accompany the Learned Special Officer and the Ameens, as also the said Learned Special Officer and the Ameens since it appears from paragraph 5 of the report that obstruction was made by the local people in huge number who threatened both the learned Special Officer and the officer of the K.M.D.A From page 20 of the report of the Special Officer it appears that the B.L & L.R.O has also given a report and at least two paragraphs thereof echo the sentiment of the Ameens. It is evident that the civil service under the State of West Bengal appears to feel that it has jurisdiction to decide whether the High Court has jurisdiction to pass an order directing any person to execute any commission as entrusted to it by the Court. I would have thought that such person acts as a special referee of the Court, and the question of statutory jurisdiction of such officer is not attracted. Such presumption of the civil servants of the State of West Bengal, and subordinate staff is alarming. An example is required to be made of them. If the State of West Bengal was aggrieved with the order, in the eye of law, it had every right to prefer an appeal. It has not done so. Instead it has allowed its minions to defy the order with impunity, setting them up in a super-appellate jurisdiction alien to the Constitution of India. If the State of West Bengal was aggrieved with the order, in the eye of law, it had every right to prefer an appeal. It has not done so. Instead it has allowed its minions to defy the order with impunity, setting them up in a super-appellate jurisdiction alien to the Constitution of India. The Commissioner of Police of Kolkata Police is directed to ensure that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer whose signature appears at page 20 of the writ petition as also the two Ameens referred to in the Report of the Learned Special Officer in the custody of police personnel before this Court at 10-30 o' clock in the forenoon on February 7, 2018 who shall remain present, leaving all other work aside, and not depart unless granted leave to do so by the Court. In case this Court which usually sits at 3 o' clock in the afternoon everyday does not sit on the day, the usual procedure of recording the presence before the principal officer of the Court at 4:30 in the afternoon shall apply. They will also independently file copies of their report on measurement whose copies must be given earlier to the Learned Special Officer, so that he can include copies of it in his report. It is recorded that Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, desperately tried to save his officers handing up a notice addressed to the petitioner where the petitioner was requested by the authorities to give the R.S plot number of the land. However, this was not the reason assigned in writing for not completing the proceedings, as appears from the reports/letters of the authorities enclosed with the report of the Learned Special Officer. Let the matter be posted for further consideration and recording compliance of this order on February 7, 2018 and marked heard in part. The work of inspection must be completed within 72 hours.” 10. At the time of hearing of the present appeal, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants draws this Court's attention to the fact that the work of inspection has been complied with in terms of the directions given by the learned Single Judge. Learned advocate representing the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner is also aware of this fact and does not dispute this position. Learned advocate representing the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner is also aware of this fact and does not dispute this position. Considering this aspect of the matter, we are of the view that there is no necessity for the appellants to appear in person before the learned Single Judge on the next date. The order dated 29th January, 2018, stands modified accordingly. 11. The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly. 12. List this matter next Tuesday (13.02.2018) only for the purpose of ascertaining payment of costs in terms of this order. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.:- I agree.