JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - In this contempt petition, Dharmesh Chandra Dubey hitherto Chairmen of the Nagar Palika of District Etawah submits that the terms of the order dated 7 August 1990 passed by a Bench of this Court have been breached. The essence of his allegations is that he was to loss his post as Chairmen of the Nagar Palikas regard being had to the order of the each aforesaid, a motion of no confidence dated July 6, 1990 was scheduled for discussion on August 8, 1990. In between Dharmesh Chandra Dubey filed a writ petition. On his stay application an order was passed the test of which is reproduced see below :- "List this petition for admission along with writ petition No. 15955 of 1990 before the Bench dealing with latter case has already been fixed on 16.8.1990. The the learned Standing counsel if so desires may file counter affidavit by the next date in this case. Meanwhile no confidence motion dated 6-7-1990 scheduled to be held on 8.8.1990 as against the petitioner may be held and the result of the same will be provisional and shall be subject to further order passed by this court. A copy of this order may be issued lo the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges today. Sd. A.P.M. Sd. U.K.V. 7.8.1990" 2. Since the order aforesaid was passed and as of date the contention of Dharesh Chandra Dubey is that the terms of the order have been violated, he submits that the District Magistrate opposite party No. 3 wrested charge of his office as chairman of the Nagar Palika. And, this he asserts was done under the instigation of the Chief Minister arrayed as a party in this contempt petition. The other parties are Secretary, Urban Development and successor to the petitioner in the office of the Chairman, Nagar Palika. 3. The allegations against the Chief Minister are as submitted in the text of the petitioner and are on the basis of a newspaper report, copy of which is appended as Annexure 1. This newspaper is writ large with expressions the like of which would be that upon information collected, received or the reporter heard (Bataya gaya hai-janta dal sutron ke havale se pata chala hai, batate hain-pata chala hai, to bataya jata hai and pata chala hai). This newspaper is writ large with expressions the like of which would be that upon information collected, received or the reporter heard (Bataya gaya hai-janta dal sutron ke havale se pata chala hai, batate hain-pata chala hai, to bataya jata hai and pata chala hai). This may not be information upon which this court can act to occasion issue of notices to the opposite parties. 4. The occasion to issue notices to a party, whether in this case or another will rest on what the terms of the judgment of order of the court is. It is the business of this Court, thus, to find out the conditions of the order or interpret what the conditions of the order may be. Thus, the terms of the stay order of August 8, 1990 will have to be examined dialectically by this court. The context of the order is such that the position of the petitioner as Chairman, Nagar Palika can be put in a clinical coma. His resurrection can only be by the court where the writ petition is pending. His redemption is in that court. The petitioner is, thus, in the wrong court and should seek further orders from the appropriate court. 5. Much emphasis has been stressed by learned counsel for the petitioner that parties had understood the order which was passed on August 7, 1990 to be a stay order. This may be, but in so far as this court is concerned it will have to discern the text of the order on the terms of the stay order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly submitted that it is subject to two interpretation; that it may be understood as a stay order is one aspect of the matter and the other is that the intendment may be carried by the respondent but subject to further orders of the court. There was note restraint upon the meeting that a motion of no confidence be withheld. On the contrary, this court had made-it clear that the meeting as scheduled for August 8, 1990 be held. Not only this the court also clarified that the result, whatever it may be, would be provisional and thereafter the court further clarified that the result of the meeting so held on August 8, 1990 would be subject to further orders passed by that court. Not only this the court also clarified that the result, whatever it may be, would be provisional and thereafter the court further clarified that the result of the meeting so held on August 8, 1990 would be subject to further orders passed by that court. Thus, the restraint not to hold the meeting is not in the order and the presumption on the result also is that it "will be provisional and shall be subject to further orders passed by this court" implied the writ court. 6. What may be the orders of the court now when the matter comes before it, is not for this court to comment upon. This contempt petition, in so far as it rests on the orders of August 7, 1990, is either misplaced or premature. Thus, it is consigned to the record as dismissed.