ORDER

1. The petitioner herein is M/s. Abhijit Tea Co. (P) Ltd. and the respondents are (1) Registrar (Original Side), Calcutta High Court, (2) M/s. The New Red Bank Tea Co., Calcutta and (3) Shri Rabin Pal, Managing Director of the Second respondent Company.

2. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, while disposing of Appeal No. 514 of 1992 on 25-4-1994, directed the Registrar (Original Side), High Court of Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as Registrar), the first respondent herein to refund a sum of Rs. 19,33,873.74 to the petitioner. The said amount was held in Court deposit. An application for review was filed in the case. One of the members of the Bench had, by the, retired. The other member of the Bench, Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. by order dated 21-7-1994, rejected the review application, but directed the Registrar to hold the money for further one week. The petitioner herein filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9575 of 1994 in this Court and assailed the said direction. A Bench of this Court noticed another review application, filed by the party respondent in the meanwhile, was pending disposal, but, by order dated 16-8-1994 held that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge was improper and set aside the same. The advocate for the petitioner wrote to the Registrar on various dates requesting for refund of the money amounting to Rs. 19,33,873.74 with interest evidenced by communications dated 22-8-1994 (Annexure VI), 24-8-1994 (Annexure VII) and also intimated the Registrar by communication of the same date that all formalities for getting the refund, as directed, have been complied with. The records further disclose that the matter came up before Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. on 2-9-1994. The learned Judge recalled the order passed earlier and made it clear that there will be no interim order in view of the order passed by this Court dated 16-8-1994 and directed the posting of the review application on 8-9-1994. The petitioner again applied to the first respondent for refund on 2-9-1994. The order passed by the learned Judge on 2-9-1994 recalling the earlier order was also brought to the notice of the first respondent by communication dated 5-9-1994, with a request the amount in deposit. The review application was heard on 16-9-1994 and the court directed the parties to submit written notes by 26-9-1994. Stating that the review matter is pending for judgment, it was ordered that the Registrar will not make the payment "for a period of fortnight" (Annexure XII). It is thereafter the petitioner approached this Court on 23-9-1994 complaining that the order passed by this Court on 16-8-1994 has not been complied with and that appropriate action in contempt against the first respondent, the Registrar and the parties in the appeal, who are causing impediments from disbursing the refund to the petitioner, be initiated. The first respondent, Registrar has filed counter-affidavits dated 27-4-4994 and 21-7-1995. Respondents 2 and 3 have also filed a counter-affidavit dated April/May 1995.

3. We heard counsel. In the review application Shyamal Kumar Sen, J., by order dated 16-9-1994, observed that the first respondent, the Registrar, will not make the payment "for a period of fortnight". The same learned Judge, after noticing the order passed by this Court on 16-8-1994, vacated the earlier order withholding payment, by order dated 2-9-1994 (Annexure VII). But the same learned Judge, by order dated 16-9-1994, directed the first respondent not to make payment "for a period of fortnight" after the arguments in the review application were heard. In spite of the categorical order passed by this Court on 16-8-1994 the refund due to the petitioner was withheld. It is sad indeed to notice that the same learned Judge who passed the order dated 2-9-1994 passed the later order dated 16-9-1994 stating that the first respondent will not make payment "for a period of fortnight". What persuaded the learned Judge to hold so, is not clear.

4. W