HARI SWARUP, J. This application has been moved for tak ing action in contempt against the Sub-Divisional Officer who is alleg ed to have passed the order of removal. The petitioner was the Pra dhan of the Gaon Sabha. Proceedings against him were taken for his removal and thereafter an order of removal was passed. It is also alleged that some appeal was preferred to the District Magistrate against that order. Having lost everywhere the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court and in the writ petition also prayed for an in terim relief. The interim order was passed by this Court on April 4, 1975 in the following terms: "issue notice. Further proceedings for the removal of the Pra dhan shall remain stayed till further orders of this Court. It is now alleged that after the order had been passed the respondent forcibly took away from the petitioner the papers and documents concerning the office of Pradhan. This act of respondent is said to amount to committing of contempt by disobedience of the order dated April 4, 1975. A look at the writ petition shows that there is no clear averment anywhere in the petition that the order of removal had been passed. The order of removal was not filed. There is also no prayer in the writ petition for quashing the order of removal. No copies of orders were annexed. In these circumstances we have to see the intention of the order passed by this Court. The Courts order was that further proceedings will not be taken for the removal of the Pradhan which means the stay of proceedings anterior to the order of removal and not subsequent to the order of removal. As the order of removal had already been passed before the interim order was issued, the interim order was of no utility and was not capable of being disobeyed. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on Ved Singh v. Assistant Sub-Divisional Officer A. I. R. 1965 Alld. 370. In that case the in terim order that was granted was in these terms: "issue notice. Let an ad interim order issue staying operation of the order made by respondent No. 1 dated May 26, 1959. " The question then came for decision about the effect of this order. 370. In that case the in terim order that was granted was in these terms: "issue notice. Let an ad interim order issue staying operation of the order made by respondent No. 1 dated May 26, 1959. " The question then came for decision about the effect of this order. The relevant portion of the judgment runs thus: "what was stayed was only operation of the order of removal; the order itself was not deemed not to exist. The ad interim order was prospective; what was further required to be done, or what could further be done, was not to be done. Only what remained to be done was stayed, not the effect of what had already come into existence. The removal was the immediate effect of the order and nothing was required to be done to bring it about. As soon as the order was passed the appellant was removed and as soon as he was removed he became disqualified. " It is thus clear that the order of removal takes effect immediately on its being passed and once it is passed nothing remains to bring it into effect. In the present case, the interim order granted by this court gave no effective relief, as the order of removal had already been passed and nothing further was to be done. There could thus be no disobedience of the order. Learned counsel contends that unless charge had been formally taken and papers delivered, removal could not be deemed complete. I am unable to accept this contention. As held in the case of Ved Singh A. I. R. 1965 Alld. 370, the order of removal takes effect immediately, and no fur ther proceeding is required. If a person keeps any document or pub lic property with him thereafter, he does so without authority of law and its recovery cannot be deemed to be part of proceedings of remov al of the Pradhan. In these circumstances, the respondent be deemed to have committed any contempt. The application is dismissed. .