( 1 ) THE order passed by the Collector of Mehsana (respondent no. 2 herein) on 22nd February 1996, rejecting the petitioners application for selling certain parcels of land, bearing Survey Nos. 34/1, 34/2, 35/1 and 35/2 situated at patan ("the Disputed Lands" for convenience) to one Kuberbhai Umedbhai Patel is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a tribal for the purposes of S. 73aa of the Bombay Land Revenue Code ("the code" for brief ). He is in occupation and possession of the disputed lands. They are agricultural lands. It is the case of the petitioner that he was unable to cultivate them in view of his old age and debilities. He, therefore, applied to respondent No. 2 on 11th December 1991 for permission to sell the disputed lands to one Kuberbhai umedbhai Patel ("the Proposed Purchaser", for convenience ). A copy of his application is at Annexure "a" to this petition. By his order passed on 13th October, 1992, respondent No. 2 rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure "e" to this petition. The petitioner carried the matter in revision before the State Government (respondent no. 1 herein), presumably under S. 211 of the Code. By the order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 19th April 1993, the petitioners revisional application came to be rejected. Its copy is at Annexure "f" to this petition. It appears that the petitioner again applied to the Collector for permission to sell the disputed lands to the proposed purchaser. By the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 4th february 1995, that application was again rejected. The petitioner thereupon moved this Court by way of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. It came to be registered as Special Civil Application No. 1398 of 1995. It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioners application for permission to sell the disputed lands was rejected on the ground that the proposed purchaser was a non-tribal and, according to the authorities, there is no provision in the Code for transfer of a land belonging to a tribal to a non-tribal. The aforesaid writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 5th September 1995. By its decision (Coram : S. M. Soni, J.) rendered on that day, this Court accepted the petition and the orders at Annexures "e", and "f" to this petition were quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to respondent No. 2 for deciding the fate of the petitioners application in the light of S. 73aa (2) of the Code. A copy of the aforesaid decision of this Court is at Annexure "g" to this petition. It appears that thereafter the matter was taken up for hearing afresh by respondent No. 2 and, by his order passed on 22nd February 1996, the petitioners application came to be rejected again on the ground that there exists no provision in the Code for transfer of a land held by a tribal to a non-tribal. Its copy is at Annexure "h" to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon again approached this Court by means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure "h" to this petition.

( 3 ) IT is strange and surprising that respondent No. 2 has not considered the provisions contained in S. 73aa (2) of the Code despite the direction contained in the aforesaid decision of this Court at Annexure "g" to this petition. Respondent no. 2 could not have ignored the specific reference made to the aforesaid statutory provision by this Court in its aforesaid decision. To ignore conveniently the direction contained in a judgment of this Court would certainly tantamount to its wilful defiance and would amount to contempt of this Court.

( 4 ) EVEN otherwise, the impugned order at Annexure "a" to this petition suffers from the vice of non-application of mind on the part of respondent No. 2. It would be quite proper at t