Judgment :- 1. We are surprised that when an order of this Court was not obeyed the petitioner felt that he must invoke the jurisdiction of this Court once again under Art 226 of the Constitution. It was explained by Sri. Nayanar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that it was so done because in the first order no time limit was fixed for compliance. It is not the law that when no time limit is fixed, the order 'is not required to be complied with. If the time limit is not fixed, the order has to be complied within a reasonable time. What in a given case is the reasonable time depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case When an order is made by this Court in exercise of the power under Art.226 of the Constitution, it has all the efficacy and vitality and has to be obeyed. If it is not obeyed the party cannot once again approach this Court for securing what he thinks a stronger order by securing fixation of time limit for compliance. That is precisely what the petitioner has done by approaching this Court once again and on the second occasion the petitioner secured a direction to comply with the earlier judgment within the specified time. This is clearly impermissible. If the writ issued by this Court is not obeyed the remedy is not to approach this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the earlier writ issued by this Court. The remedy available to the aggrieved party is to enforce the first order in appropriate proceedings. This can be done by invoking the powers of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioner not having done so now seeks relief under the Contempt of Courts Act when the second order was also disobeyed. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner we could have declined jurisdiction. As it was explained by Sri Nayanar that the mistake committed by him is bona fide we shall not decline jurisdiction. Notice. Personal presence is dispensed with. Call after ten days.