( 1 ) THESE applications arise out of an order in C. C. No. 866 of 1997 in W. P. No. 2079 of 1996, wherein the respondents-authorities were admonished by this Court for causing delay in passing of the order in spite of the direction to pass orders within two weeks.

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the present review applications are that therespondent herein-writ petitioner filed W. P. No. 2070 of 1996 seeking a direction to the petitioners herein-respondents authorities in the writ petition to regularise his services in the respondents-Society. This Court by an order dated 7-2-1996 disposed of the Writ Petition directing the respondents- authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994 and pass appropriate orders within two months (sic. weeks) from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. However, in spite of specific directions of this Court, it was complained in C. C. No. 866 of 1997, that no orders were passed in obedience of the directions given to the respondents in the Writ Petition. It appears that during the pendency of the Contempt Case in fact the case of the writ petitioner was considered and his claim for regularisation of services was refused by order dated 24-9-1997 and the same was brought to the notice of the learned judge hearing the contempt case. The learned Judge while closing the contempt case observed as follows:"this is compounded by the fact that there is a delay in passing of the order in spite of the direction to pass orders within two weeks. There is no whisper of apology in the counter-affidavit. In these circumstances, the respondents are admonished for the delay and a note of this recalcitrant attitude shall be kept in the confidential reports of the officers concerned. However, the petitioner has to seek his remedies against the order dated 24-9-1997 separately. The contempt case is closed. "

( 3 ) IN substance, the order of the learned Judge in the contempt case is neitheran order punishing the respondent-authorities sentencing to suffer simple imprisonment as contemplated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts act (for short the Act ) or to pay a fine or both. In the instant case none of these punishments have been awarded to the petitioners herein, nor did the learned Judge recorded the categorical finding that the respondents in the contempt case were found guilty of the contempt of Court.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, in view of the observations made by the learned Judge in the contempt case, the petitioners herein filed an affidavit tendering apology.

( 5 ) AS far as the factual stand is concerned the case of the petitioners here in is that at the relevant point of time the first petitioner was not the District collector, Chairman, District Scheduled Castes Service Co-operative Society limited, Adilabad. According to him, in the writ petition, final orders were passed on 7-2-1996 and a copy of the said order was received in the Office of the District Collector on 23-2-1996, that the first petitioner herein assumed the charge of the Office of the District Collector, Adilabad on 11-8-1996 and that therefore whatever be the delay in dealing with the case of the writ petition in W. P. No. 2070 of 1996 occurred by the time he resumed charge as Collector, adilabad, by which time the correspondence between the Office of the collector and the Government of Andhra Pradesh was going on and finally and after the required legal consultation process was completed the 1st petitioner herein took a decision to reject the case of the writ petitioner. In the back ground of the said facts the petitioners herein submitted that the observations made by the learned Judge in the contempt case are not warranted. Apart from it the petitioners herein filed Review C. A. No. 465 of 1998 tendering their unconditional apology in the affidavit filed in support of the present petition.

( 6 ) SRI A. Ashok Kumar, learned Coun