Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, granting interim stay and also initiating,suo motu con tempt proceedings -against Col. (Retd.) V. K. Gaur, Principal Director of the appellant, a deemed University. 2. The respondent filed a writ petition, challenging cancellation of his admission to bachelor of Journalism and Mass Communication for the year 2009-10 on the ground that he failed to furnish character certificate from the last attended institution, which institution, according to the writ petitioner, was also under the control of the appellant. In the writ petition, the respondent pleaded that he was granted admission based on EPSI National Admission test, 2009 and he paid the requisite fee. He started attending classes from 27.7.2009. However, on 4.8.2009, he was not allowed to continue the classes. He received letter dated 11.8.2009, cancelling his admission. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petition was filed on 15.9.2009. On 16.9.2009, while issuing notice, the Court directed that the respondent be allowed to continue with the course. 3. The respondent filed an application on 20.11.2009, stating that the appellant did not allow the respondent to join classes in compliance of order dated 16.9.2009. He was first told that legal advice was being sought. Thereafter, a false complaint was filed against the respondent under Sec.107/ 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a view to restrain him from entering the premises of the University in violation of order of this Court. He received letter dated 14.11.2009 to the effect that since this Court had not disposed of application of the appellant within two weeks, interim order dated 16.9.2009 stood vacated under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution. The respondent sought stay of the said letter. The said application came up for hearing on 23.11.2009 and while issuing notice to the appellant, operation of order, Annexure P-14, was stayed. It was also observed that there appeared to be wilful disobedience of the order of the Court, for which, Suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated. The matter is listed for hearing on 8.12.2009. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Contention put forward is that the appellant had made an application for vacation of stay on 13.10.2009, on which notice was issued, but the application was not disposed of within two weeks,. The matter is listed for hearing on 8.12.2009. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Contention put forward is that the appellant had made an application for vacation of stay on 13.10.2009, on which notice was issued, but the application was not disposed of within two weeks,. In such a situation, stay granted by this Court on 16.9 2009 stood vacated and the appellant was not required to carry out the said order thereafter. This being the position, the Court had no jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings. The averment that, the respondent was not allowed to join classes, was not correct. In any, case, the order stopping the respondent from joining the classes, by taking the view that the order of the Court stood automatically vacated, was: under a legal advice and in such a situation, no contempt was involved. Learned counsel relies on stand taken in the reply which is at page 82 of the paper book. Reliance has also been placed on judgments of gujarat High Court in District Development officer V/s. Manisen Virabhai,air 2000 Guj.255.1 and Purshottam co-op. Housing Society Ltd (Part II) V/s. Sural municipal Corporation,air 2003 Guj.37 Kerala High Court in P. Raghunandanan V/s. Regional Transport authority, Palakkad and Ors,air 1996 Kor.115. Allahabad high Court in Dr. R. C. Chaudhary V/s. Vice chancellor, B. R. Ambedkar University and ors. , AIR 2004 All 95. Calcutta High Court in Krishan Kumar agarwala V/s. Reserve Bank of India and others,air 1991 Cal.272and Rajasthan High Court in Gheesa Lal V/s. State of Rajasthan. 7. We are unable to accept the submission. A perusal of CM. No.1.8982 of 2009, whereon the impugned order has been passed shows that it contains serious allegation of contumacious conduct. If true, clear contempt is made out. The alleged contemner is alleged to have deliberately defied the order of this Court and also got proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr. P. C. lodged against the respondent to prevent him from enforcing order of this Court. In any case, at this stage, interference can be permissible only,if order of learned Single judge is without jurisdiction. As regards judgments relied upon, though we may have respectfully differed with the view taken therein, the said question does not arise as allegations are not simply of breach of interim order but also of contumacious conduct. 8. In any case, at this stage, interference can be permissible only,if order of learned Single judge is without jurisdiction. As regards judgments relied upon, though we may have respectfully differed with the view taken therein, the said question does not arise as allegations are not simply of breach of interim order but also of contumacious conduct. 8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned single Judge at this stage. 9. The appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that we have not expressed any final view on merits. Appeal dismissed.