(1) ON 12/10/1987, this court madethe following order: "HEARD leamed counsel forthe parties. Mr. Manchanda forthe department agres that the tax liability ofthe petitioner has been reduced to Rs. 3,38,146.00 . Mr. P.N. Mishra, counsel forthe petitioner states in court that this amount has aiready been paid tothe depart- ment. In that view ofthe matter,the petitioner no more owes any tax tothe Income Tax Department.the sale aiready held confirmation of which we had granted shall stand vacated. Spcial leave petition is disposed ofwith aforesaid directions." (2) IN view what had been said inthe order there was no occasion to interpret it to mean that this court had vacatedthe stay of further proceedings in appeal relating tothe confirmation which were pending beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur. Afterthe order was shown to him,the Commissioner madethe following order: "THE Special Leave Petition having neither been specifically allowed or rejected but was disposed of "with aforesaid directions", and ex parte stay of confirmation of sale having been specifically vacated and as such, there being no longer any stay ofthe sale in opration, it is possible to takethe view thatthe status quo stood restored and thatthe stay and notthe sale itself had been vacated and furtherthe appeal which was filed and pending beforethe COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Recovery was withthe "directions" oftheir Lordships and in accordance with law." (3) WE are ofthe view thatthe order of this court was clear and unambiguous.the net effect of that order was thatthe auction sale was set aside. There was no scope to interpret that order to mean thatthe "stay ofthe sale in opration" was no longer there andthe Commissioner was free to deal withthe appeal. We are surprised to notice thatthe Commissioner thought it appropriate to comment aboutthe order of this court inthe manner as appearing inthe portion within quotation. We hve a feeling thatthe concemed Commissioner has intentionally floutedthe direction of this court and even afterthe sale was set aside by this court, he assumed jurisdiction to deal withthe matter. This action of his amounts, prima facie, to contempt of this court. Notice shall issue to him to personally appear and show cause before this court on 7/03/1988 as to why he shall not be proceeded against underthe Contempt of courts Act. This action of his amounts, prima facie, to contempt of this court. Notice shall issue to him to personally appear and show cause before this court on 7/03/1988 as to why he shall not be proceeded against underthe Contempt of courts Act. (4) WE do not propose to clarify our order dated 10/12/1987 as it is clear and does not require any clarification.the auction purchaserS ptition may be separately registered as a CMP to be dealt with in accordance with law and be listed for directions on 7/03/1988. court Master