S. P. BHARUCHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS contempt petition arises upon the following facts: on 7th february, 1991 the state govern men I passed an order appointing the respondent-special officer of the srirampuram co-operative bank limited, srirampuram, Bangalore for the period of one year with immediate effect. The writ petition was filed to impugn this order. On 25th february, 1991 a learned single judge of this court passed an interim order in the writ petition which staled, "pending disposal of the aforesaid writ petition. . . . . . . . . the operation of the order dated 7th february, 1991 passed by the respondent No. 1 in No. Cmw-13-clm-91 (annexure-f to the wp) be and the same is hereby stayed. " as is admitted in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, the said stay order was received in the tappal Section of her office in theevening of 25th february, 1991 and it came to her knowledge on the afternoon of 26th february, 1991. On 26th february, 1991, the respondent suspended one nagalingaiah, the manager of the bank, and relieved him of his duties from that day. In the preamble to the suspension order the respondent stated that she had been appointed special officer of the bank on 7th february, 1991 in place of its board of directors and, in pursuance of the said appointment Order, had assumed charge as special officer on 7th february, 1991. The contempt petition alleges that the respondent committed contempt of court in that the respondent issued the suspension Order, acting as special officer, despite knowledge of the said stay order. ( 2 ) THE respondent's counter-affidavit contends that the suspension order was passed by her on the morning of 26th february, 1991, that is, before she came to know of the said stay order. She assumed charge as special officer on 7th february, 1991 and the said stay order was passed on 25th february, 1991; the said stay order had, therefore, become infructuous. The contempt petition had been filed after she had functioned as special officer for more than 9 months. She assumed charge as special officer on 7th february, 1991 and the said stay order was passed on 25th february, 1991; the said stay order had, therefore, become infructuous. The contempt petition had been filed after she had functioned as special officer for more than 9 months. She was no longer the special officer of the bank in view of the government order dated 12th december, 1991 by which the period of appointment of the special officer had been extended by one more year and one d. t. kempaiah, co-operative development officer, had been appointed as special officer in her place. ( 3 ) THE contempt petition reached hearing on the 11th instant. It was contended by the learned Advocate general appearing on behalf of the respondent that, since the respondent had assumed charge on 7th february, 1991 and the said stay order had been issued on 25th february, 1991, the said stay order had become inoperative. The contempt petition stood adjourned to today when we asked the Advocate general to satisfy us that that was the position of law. The matter has accordingly reached hearing again today. ( 4 ) THE Advocate general has now brought to our notice only one judgment, viz, Debabrata Bandopadhyay v State of West Bengal, AIR 1969 SC 189 . On 13th january, 1964, the High Court of Calcutta had directed the stay of the operation of the order of a sessions judge dated 23rd december, 1963. In the meanwhile, the order of 23rd december, 1963 had been acted upon in that a pay order had been issued as directed thereby, and the pay order had been encashed by 13th january, 1964. It was in these circumstances that the Supreme Court observed that the stay order was ineffective since there was nothing to stay. ( 5 ) IN the judgment aforementioned, the stay order stayed the issuance of a pay order. The pay order having been issued and encashed by the time the stay order was issued, the Supreme Court observed that there was nothing to stay. The order which was stayed was spent by the time the stay order was issued. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, the said stay order stayed the operation of the said appointment order appointing the respondent-special officer of the bank for the period of one year. The said appointment order was passed on 7th february, 1991. The order which was stayed was spent by the time the stay order was issued. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, the said stay order stayed the operation of the said appointment order appointing the respondent-special officer of the bank for the period of one year. The said appointment order was passed on 7th february, 1991. It was stayed on 25th february, 1991. The said stay order was served on the respondent on 26th february, 1991. The said appointment order passed on 7th february, 1991 had not spent itself on 26th february, 1991. It was intended to operate until 6th february, 1992. As we understand the law, as and from 26th february, 1991 onwards the said appointment order stood suspended and ceased to be effective in law until the disposal of the writ petition or until further orders were passed by this court or a higher court setting aside or modifying the said stay order. The respondent was, therefore, acting contrary to the said stay order for almost nine months after 26th february, 1991. evening of 25th february, 1991 and it came to her knowledge on the afternoon of 26th february, 1991. On 26th february, 1991, the respondent suspended one nagalingaiah, the manager of the bank, and relieved him of his duties from that day. In the preamble to the suspension order the respondent stated that she had been appointed special officer of the bank on 7th february, 1991 in place of its board of directors and, in pursuance of the said appointment Order, had assumed charge as special officer on 7th february, 1991. The contempt petition alleges that the respondent committed contempt of court in that the respondent issued the suspension Order, acting as special officer, despite knowledge of the said stay order. ( 7 ) THE shorter oxford english dictionary defines 'stay' to mean: the action of stopping or bringing to a stand or pause and as suspension of a judicial proceeding. Webster's dictionary defines the word 'stay' to mean: to stop or halt, to hold back, detain or restrain, as from going or proceeding further, to suspend or delay a proceeding. ( 7 ) THE shorter oxford english dictionary defines 'stay' to mean: the action of stopping or bringing to a stand or pause and as suspension of a judicial proceeding. Webster's dictionary defines the word 'stay' to mean: to stop or halt, to hold back, detain or restrain, as from going or proceeding further, to suspend or delay a proceeding. In jowitt's dictionary of english law 'stay' is defined thus: a stay of proceedings in an action is a suspension of them; so that if a plaintiff is ordered to do something and fails to do it, the proceedings may be ordered to be stayed until he complies with the order. In the law lexicon by p. Ramanatha iyer, reprint edition, 1987, the words 'stay of execution' are defined thus:" (THE words in practice) a term during which no execution can issue on a judgment; means to suspend the enforcement of a judgment or order until something else happens, for e. g. , an appeal can be heard. " ( 8 ) WE are in no doubt that, by reason of the said stay order issued on 25th february, 1991, the said appointment order dated 7th february, 1991 appointing the respondent-special officer of the bank for the period of one year was suspended and ceased to have any effect pending the disposal of the writ petition. Once it was brought to her knowledge, which, admittedly it was on 26th february, 1991, the respondent could not have continued to function as special officer and her action in doing so for nine months was in breach of the stay order. ( 9 ) IT appears, in fact, that despite the said stay Order, the state government, by its order dated 12th december, 1991, has extended the appointment of special officer for the bank for a further period of one year. ( 10 ) ON 11th instant we had told the Advocate general that we had come across other cases of a similar nature and, therefore, we wanted the law to be clarified. It was for that purpose that the matter was adjourned till today. Since that was the objective, we had also told the Advocate general that we would not proceed to punish the respondent in any case. It was for that purpose that the matter was adjourned till today. Since that was the objective, we had also told the Advocate general that we would not proceed to punish the respondent in any case. It is for this reason that, though we find the respondent to be in breach of the said stay Order, we do not frame charges against her for contempt. ( 11 ) WE make it clear that, in the event that the special officer appointed by the order dated 12th december, 1991 continues to function as such, it shall be open to the complainant, if so advised, to adopt contempt proceedings. order accordingly. --- *** --- .