JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - This application has been filed by the Petitioner under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 alleging violation of order dated 13.12.2007 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No. 2247 of 2007 arising out of Criminal Revision No. 1483 of 2007 preferred by opposite party No. 1 against the Petitioner and State of Orissa. Opposite party No. 2 does not figure as a party in the revision. The interim order, which is being extended from time to time till date, alleged to have been violated, reads as follows : Heard. As an interim measure, this Court directs that status quo with regard to possession, as on today be maintained till 4.1.2008. 2. Criminal Revision No. 1483 of 2007 is directed against order dated 5.12.2007 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Angul in C.P. Ill Case No. 298 of 2007. It is averred in the contempt application that order dated 5.12.2007 was passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Angul in response to application filed by opposite party No. 1., copy of which is at Annexure-4. 3. In order to appreciate rival claims of Petitioner and opposite party No. 1 in this application to be in possession over Kalinga Institute of Mining Engineering and Technology (for short 'KIMET'), Chhendipada, it is necessary to refer to the order passed by the learned S.D.M., Angul in C.P.III Case No. 298 of 2007. The proceeding initiated u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure by order dated 22.11.2007 reads as follows : Perused the P.R. submitted by the O.I.C. Chhendipada P.S. vide Non-FIR No. 81/2007 u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure Examined the I.O. and recorded his evidence. Whereas from the above it has been made to appear me that there is apprehension of serious law and order situation concerning to entry of either of the two principals Sri Hemanta Kumar Pradhan and Birakishore Patel of KIMET, Chhendipada (hereinafter called the 2nd party) into the said institution during the examination period as both of them "have good number of supporters who may create disturbances if either of the Principals enters into the institution to recognize himself as real principal. I consider this a case of emergency within the local limits of my jurisdiction. I consider this a case of emergency within the local limits of my jurisdiction. Therefore by virtue of power conferred on me u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure I do hereby prohibit both the Principals (2nd party members) to enter into the premises of KIMET, Chhendipada from 22.11.2007 to 6.12.2007. The O.I.C, Chhendipada P.S. is directed to promulgate the order and cause service of the order on the 2nd party members and return the S.R. by 26.11.07. Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this day the 22nd November, 2007. Thereafter by order dated 25.11.2007 prohibitory order passed against opposite party No. 1 was lifted. As the prohibitory order was going to expire on 6.12.2007, opposite party No. 1 filed application at Annexure-4 to this contempt application to extend the period of prohibitory order passed against the Petitioner. However, the learned S.D.M, Angul passed the order impugned in Criminal Revision No. 1483 of 2007 directing the O.I.C, Chhendipada P.S. to conduct an enquiry and submit report. Ultimately, the proceeding appeals to have been dropped by order 7.12.2007 stating that the period of prohibitory order had expired on 6.12.2007 for which the case was to be closed. 4. A number of litigations have been instituted in connection with rival claims of management of KIMET. It is averred in the contempt application that opposite party No. 1 was appointed as Principal-cum-Member Secretary, Governing Body by a non-trustee, namely, Sri Kishore Chandra Nath, claiming himself as Secretary of the Trust Board, with effect from 16.1.2007. The Petitioner was appointed to the said post with effect from 19.11.2007. During his tenure as the Principal-cum-Member Secretary Governing Body, FIR was lodged against opposite party No. 1 in connection with withdrawal of money from UCO Bank, Bagadia Branch and he was directed to refund Rs.3.83 lakhs by Branch Manager of the Bank. Due to misconduct and irregularities on the part of opposite party No. 1 aforesaid Kisore Chandra Nath issued letter dated 21.11.2007 terminating his service which was published in the news paper on 7.12.2007. Appointment of the Petitioner was published in a news paper on 15.12.2007. Despite termination of opposite party Nos.1 's service and assumption of charge by the Petitioner, opposite party No. 1 instituted C.P.III Case No. 298 of 2007 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Executive), Angul describing him as the Principal-cum-Member Secretary, Governing Body. Appointment of the Petitioner was published in a news paper on 15.12.2007. Despite termination of opposite party Nos.1 's service and assumption of charge by the Petitioner, opposite party No. 1 instituted C.P.III Case No. 298 of 2007 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Executive), Angul describing him as the Principal-cum-Member Secretary, Governing Body. Thereafter, opposite party No. 1 filed W.P.(C) No. 15098 of 2007 in this Court and obtained order dated 23.11.2007 in his favour to manage the examination of Diploma level students scheduled to be conducted from 22.11.2007 to 6.12.2007. On being aware of the same, Sri Bansidhar Pradhan, Founder Trustee-cum- Chairman, Governing Body intervened in the matter and moved for modification of the order. Notice was issued to opposite party No. 1 but due to absence of opposite party No. 1 in the institution it could not be served. In such circumstances, order dated 30.11.2007 at Annexure-3/1 was passed in Misc. Case No. 13554 of 2007 directing the Center Superintendent deputed by SCTEVT to conduct the examination. The operative portion of the order under Annexure-3/1 reads : xx xx xx It is stated by Sri Pradhan that examination is being conducted by the Centre Superintendent deputed by SCTEVT. Since the Center Superintendent is conducting the examination, even in absence of the principal-writ Petitioner, in order to ensure that the students appear in the examination and examinations are conducted smoothly, the entire examination should be conducted by the Center Superintendent without interference by the writ Petitioner or Sri Pradhan who is appearing in person in Court today. The Superintendent of Police, Angul is directed to ensure that the examinations are conducted by the Center Superintendent without any kind of interference either by the writ Petitioner or by the intervenor-Sri Pradhan. This order shall operate till end of examination. The inter-sedispute between the writ Petitioner and the present applicant is not the subject matter before this Court. They may fight in appropriate forum. It is averred that by virtue of the above said order and order dated 22.11.2007 passed in C.P.III Case No. 298 of 2007, the Petitioner's appointment as Principal of the institution was given effect to and he is discharging his function very smoothly and in a peaceful manner. In that capacity he has made communications under Annexure-3/2 to State authorities such as the Director of Technical Education & Training, Orissa. In that capacity he has made communications under Annexure-3/2 to State authorities such as the Director of Technical Education & Training, Orissa. However, opposite party No. 1 mischievously filed application under Annexure-4. Though C.P.III Case No. 298 of 2007 was dropped by order dated 7.12.2007, opposite party No. 1 instituted Criminal Revision No. 1483 of 2007 in this Court on 7.12.2007 assailing the order dated 5.12.2007. Petitioner is in possession of the institution in his capacity as the Principal-cum-Member Secretary, Governing Body with effect from 19.11.2007. As the status quo order passed by this Court has been implemented, opposite party No. 1 is not entitled to claim possession over the institution describing himself as the Principal-cum-Member Secretary, Governing Body. Opposite party No. 1 had approached the State Human Rights Commission in Case No. 509 of 2008 which was disposed of by order dated 25.4.2008 at Annexure-5 on the ground that dispute was civil in nature and did not come within the purview of human rights. Ultimately, opposite party No. 1 has challenged the order of termination of his service in C.S. No. 155 of 2008 and CMA No. 75 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Angul. Also, opposite party No. 1 appeared as an intervener and falsely claimed himself to be the Principal of KIMET in Consumer Dispute Case No. 6 of 2008 before District Consumer Redressal Forum, Angul. In the said proceeding by order dated 30.6.2008 at Annexure-8 the opposite party No. 2-Bank was directed not to allow opposite party No. 1 to operate current account No. 4616002100000095 till any final order is received from civil Court or this Court, and the Petitioner and opposite party No. 2 were directed not to operate the said account. However, opposite parties connived together and opposite party No. 1 has withdrawn Rs.6.00 lakhs from the account. Such withdrawal of amount violated the order of status quo passed by this Court for which opposite parties are liable to be punished for contempt. In an additional affidavit, filed by the Petitioner on 17.9.2008, it is further contended that opposite party No. 1 filed W.P.(C) No. 7569 of 2008 on 20.5.2008 suppressing the fact of termination of his service. The Petitioner alongwith Founder Trustee-cum-Chairman, Governing Body, Sri Bansidhar Pradhan filed Misc. Case Nos.7211 and 7229 of 2008 and intervened in the matter. In an additional affidavit, filed by the Petitioner on 17.9.2008, it is further contended that opposite party No. 1 filed W.P.(C) No. 7569 of 2008 on 20.5.2008 suppressing the fact of termination of his service. The Petitioner alongwith Founder Trustee-cum-Chairman, Governing Body, Sri Bansidhar Pradhan filed Misc. Case Nos.7211 and 7229 of 2008 and intervened in the matter. By order dated 17.6.2008 at Annexure-9 the Petitioner was permitted to open necessary bank accounts in the name of the institution. The operative portion of the order under Annexure-9 reads : Considering the submissions, it is directed that as the interveners are managing the institute now, allegedly by force, they shall open an Account in the name of the institution and deposit all the proceeds of admission and readmission which are to take place, in the said Account by maintaining proper account. Any withdrawals made from the said Account shall be properly accounted for by the interveners and such account shall be produced. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and claims of the parties. Also in W.P.(C) No. 9765 of 2008, by order dated 17.7.2008 at Annexure-10, the Petitioner was granted liberty to raise his grievances before the trial Court in C.S. No. 155 of 2008. In his rejoinder dated 14.9.2009, it is averred by the Petitioner that injunction application filed by opposite party No. 1 in CM.A. No. 75 of 2008 was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Angul by order dated 15.9.2008 and upheld by the learned Addl. District Judge. Angul by order dated 17.12.2008 copies of which are at Annexure-11-series. Opposite party No. 1 has preferred W.P.(C) No. 19688 of 2008 assailing the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Angul in F.A.O.No. 5 of 2008. In the said rejoinder the Petitioner has also annexed order dated 3.10.2008 at Annexure-12 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack in Consumer Complaint No. 88 of 2008 instituted by the Petitioner against State Bank of India and its functionaries. By the said order Petitioner has been allowed to operate Bank Account No. 30406862960 and intervention petition filed by opposite party No. 1 and one Sri Govinda Chandra Nayak was rejected. By the said order Petitioner has been allowed to operate Bank Account No. 30406862960 and intervention petition filed by opposite party No. 1 and one Sri Govinda Chandra Nayak was rejected. It is further averred by the Petitioner on the basis of copy of magazine titled 'The Horizon' at Annexure-13 that the opposite party No. 1 is continuing in service at Banwarilal Memorial I.T.C., Rajagangpur. In Anr. additional rejoinder affidavit dated 20.12.2009, the Petitioner has averred that opposite party No. 2-Bank was duly informed regarding appointment of Petitioner as Principal-cum-Member Secretary, Governing Body under letters at Annexure-14 series. 5. In the show-cause reply filed by opposite party No. 1 it is averred that he was duly appointed as the Principal of KIMET in which capacity he is continuing and in possession over the institution till date. The contempt application has been filed by the Petitioner on false and fabricated assertions as a counter blast to the application filed by opposite party No. 1 against the Petitioner alleging violation of order dated 13.12.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1483 of 2007. Opposite party No. 1 has challenged the legality of the order of termination of his appointment. In C.P.III Case No. 298 of 2007 both the Petitioner and opposite party 1 were initially restrained from entering into the premises of KIMET but subsequently by order dated 25.11.2007 order of restraint against opposite party N6.1 was lifted. The subject matter of dispute in W.P.(C) No. 15098 of 2007 related to smooth conduct of examination and the same did not relate to appointmenf or termination of service as the Principal of KIMET. It is further averred in the show-cause that the report of Law Officer, CID, CB, Orissa dated 26.3.2006 at Annexure-A discloses the conspiracy of Petitioner and his associates. It appears that in the letter at Annexure-A opinion regarding KIMET was imparted in response to letter of Superintendent of Police, Angul. In the said report, it has been mentioned that appointment of Petitioner as Principal on 17.11.2007 is not believable in view of the fact that letter of termination of service of opposite party No. 1 was issued on 21.11.2007. It is further observed in the report that on 21.11.2007 Sri Kishore Chandra Nath, who has issued the letter of termination of service of opposite party No. 1, was no more continuing as the Secretary of the Governing Body. It is further observed in the report that on 21.11.2007 Sri Kishore Chandra Nath, who has issued the letter of termination of service of opposite party No. 1, was no more continuing as the Secretary of the Governing Body. It has been specifically stated in the letter that opposite party No. 1 was exercising the power and occupying the office of Principal on 13.12.2007 and that Petitioner appears from the documents on record to be the trespasser. 6. In the show-cause affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2-Bank, it has been averred that the Bank is honestly maintaining status quo as directed by this Court by order dated 13.12.2007. The Governing Body of KIMET has not been disturbed since 13.12.2007. In this connection, reliance has been placed on letters at Annexure-A/1 and A/2. It is further averred that the Governing Body has not intimated at any time that opposite party No. 1 was relived or that new Principal's joining report has been accepted. Order dated 25.11.2007 in C.P.III Case No. 298 of 2007 reveals that restraint order passed by the learned S.D.M., Angul was dropped against opposite party No. 1 and Superintendent of Police, Angul was directed to give protection to him. Petitioner had been restrained from entering into the institution till 6.12.2007 and there is nothing on record to indicate that he took possession of the institution from opposite party No. 1 thereafter. Order passed in W.P.(C) No. 15098 of 2007 was made for smooth conduct of examination without interference by the Petitioner as well as opposite party No. 1 which did not restrain opposite party No. 1 to function or sign cheques as Principal KIMET. On receipt of the order passed in Consumer Complaint No. 6 of 2007 by the District Consumer Dispute Redresal Forum, Angul, transaction with regard to current account No. 4616002100000095 was stopped. However, on receipt of stay order of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack at Annexure-A/4, transaction was allowed by the Bank. 7. On receipt of the order passed in Consumer Complaint No. 6 of 2007 by the District Consumer Dispute Redresal Forum, Angul, transaction with regard to current account No. 4616002100000095 was stopped. However, on receipt of stay order of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack at Annexure-A/4, transaction was allowed by the Bank. 7. Though prolific averments have been made by the Petitioner in the contempt application, additional affidavit, rejoinder and additional rejoinder, and also numerous documents have been filed in support of such averments, in response to a specific query put by the Court in course of hearing to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as to how order dated 13.12.2007 in Criminal Revision No. 1483 of 2007 to maintain status quo with regard to possession has been violated, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that by virtue of appointment of the Petitioner as Principal and termination of service of opposite party No. 1 as such, the Petitioner is in possession over the institution since 19.11.2007. It was categorically stated that Petitioner does not allege to have been dispossessed. It was further submitted that in this contempt application Petitioner's grievance is confined to unauthorized operation of account of the institution lying with opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1. 8. In reply, it was contended by the learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1 as well as opposite party No. 2 that Petitioner has never come into possession over the institution. Opposite party No. 1 is discharging his duty as Principal since the date of his appointment in spite of several sporadic attempts made by Petitioner to take over forcible possession of the institution by violent means on the strength of letters of termination of services of opposite party No. 1 and of appointment of Petitioner issued without authority. So far as the legality of termination of service of Petitioner is concerned, the Petitioner has approached the civil Court. So far as the present case is concerned, the learned S.D.M., Angul restrained both the Petitioner as well as the opposite party No. 1 from entering into the institution initially but prohibitory order against opposite party No. 1 was lifted subsequently by order dated 25.11.2007. As the proceeding u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure was dropped by learned S.D.M., Angul, opposite party No. 1 approached this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1483 of 2007. As the proceeding u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure was dropped by learned S.D.M., Angul, opposite party No. 1 approached this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1483 of 2007. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, by order date 13.12.2007 direction was issued to maintain "status quo with regard to possession". The contention made on behalf of the Petitioner to the effect that Petitioner does not allege dispossession itself goes to show that this contempt application has been vexatiously filed with an ulterior motive as a preemptive ploy to dilute the issue of management and control over KIMET which is still with opposite party No. 1. Order directing maintenance of status guowith regard to possession has nothing to do with operation of bank account. Grievance relating to bank transaction has been considered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Angul and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Angul and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack for redressal of his grievance relating to breach, if any, of the orders passed by the Forum and Commission. In none of the writ petitions before the Court, the status of Petitioner as Principal has been recognized, or his claim of possession over the institution has been accepted. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 that in W.P.(C) No. 19668 of 2008 arising out of orders passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Angul in CMA No. 75 of 2008 and learned Additional District Judge, Angul in FAO No. 5 of 2008 it has been categorically held by this Court that recording of findings on disputed questions of facts while considering injunction application was improper even on existence of prima, facie case. It was observed that such function can be gone into at the time of hearing and disposal of C.S. No. 155 of 2007. It was contended that Petitioner has been set up by some persons who want to take over the management of the institution from the members of the Governing Body validly constituted and recognized by Government. In furtherance of such attempts, the Petitioner is not only taking recourse to vexatious proceedings like the present contempt application but also sporadically using force and illegal means to dispossess opposite party No. 1 from the institution. In furtherance of such attempts, the Petitioner is not only taking recourse to vexatious proceedings like the present contempt application but also sporadically using force and illegal means to dispossess opposite party No. 1 from the institution. There being no allegation against any of the opposite parties of subverting status quo with regard to possession in any manner, the proceeding is liable to be dropped. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 contended that opposite party No. 2 was not a party to the Criminal Revision No. 1483 of 2007. Order dated 13.12.2007 relates to maintenance of status quo with regard to possession only. Therefore, there is absolutely no scope to allege that opposite party No. 2 has in any manner violated the order. It is further contended that the Bank has allowed operation of the account in accordance with instructions of Governing Body duly constituted and recognized by the State Government. 10. Upon consideration of contentions made on behalf of parties and upon perusal of materials on record it is obvious that allegation in the contempt petition does not relate to violation of the direction to maintain status quo with regard to possession. According to the Petitioner, action on the part of opposite party No. 2-Bank in allowing opposite party No. 1 to make transactions in respect of Account No. 4616002100000095 and the conduct of opposite party No. 1 in operating said account amount to usurpation of the authority of the Principal of the institution. However, so far as the dispute regarding termination and appointment of Principal of the institution is concerned, matter is sub judice before the civil Court. Admittedly, opposite party No. 1 has instituted C.S. No. 155 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Angul. It is open for the parties to move civil Court for making interim arrangement, if deemed necessary. So far as dispute regarding operation of bank account is concerned, as it appears, Petitioner instituted Consumer Complaint No. 6 of 2008 in which by order dated 30.6.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Angul, Petitioner as well as opposite party No'.2-the Bank were directed not to operate the account, and the Bank was directed not to allow anybody to operate the account till any final order is received from the Civil Court or the High Court. However, operation of the said order was stayed by order dated 21.7.2008 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Misc. Case No. 941 of 2008 arising out of FAO No. 553 of 2008. Admittedly, above said bank account with opposite party No. 2 was opened by opposite party No. 1 and above said Kishore Chandra Nath, one of the managing trustees. In such circumstances, grievance, if any, relating to operation of Bank account with opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1 is extraneous to the issue involved in the Criminal Revision No. 1483 of 2007 out of which the present application has arisen. Moreover, there is absolutely no scope for the Petitioner to initiate action before this Court alleging violation of direction of Consumer Disputes Redressal Authorities. Therefore, in view of categorical submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that contempt application is limited to Petitioner's grievance of unauthorized operation of the bank account of the institution lying with opposite party No. 2, this application is without any basis. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner made an attempt to make out a case of contempt by arguing that the Petitioner being in possession over the institution by virtue of his appointment as Principal w.e.f. 19.11.2007, operation of bank account of KIMET amounts to interference with the direction to maintain status quo. However, at the risk of reputation it may be pointed out that Petitioner's claim that he was appointed as Principal w.e.f 19.11.2007, and the service of opposite party No. 1 was terminated w.e.f. 21.11.2007 is subject matter of adjudication before the Civil Court. So far as dispute relating to possession over the institution is concerned, prima facie, materials on record do not indicate that the Petitioner has ever taken over lawful possession over the institution in his capacity as Principal. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Principal w.e.f. 19.11.2007 when, admittedly, opposite party No. 1's appointment had not been terminated as according to Petitioner himself letter of termination of service of opposite party No. 1 was issued on 21.11.2007. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Principal w.e.f. 19.11.2007 when, admittedly, opposite party No. 1's appointment had not been terminated as according to Petitioner himself letter of termination of service of opposite party No. 1 was issued on 21.11.2007. Record in C.P.III Case No. 298 of 2007 reveals that on 22.11.2007 on the basis of P.R. submitted by the O.I.C. Chhendipada P.S. the proceeding u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was instituted and the Petitioner as well as opposite party No. 1 were prohibited from entering into the premises from 22.11.2007 to 6.12.2007. Thereafter, by order dated 25.11.2007 prohibitory order passed against opposite party No. 1 was vacated in response to letter of O.I.C. Chhendipada P.S. describing opposite party No. 1 as the Principal of KIMET. Order dated 25.11.2007 in C.P.III Case No. 298 of 2007 reads : This case record is taken up today on call on the strength of the letter dated 24.11.2007 of O.I.C, Chhendipada P.S. He has prayed to drop the proceeding u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure against Sri Birakishore Patel, S/o.- Gopinath Patel of vill. Palunipada, Dist. Deogarh at present Principal, KIMET, Chhendipada as Hon'ble High Court vide W.P.C. No. 15098/ 2007 has directed the O.I.C. Chhendipada P.S. to extend protection to Sri Patel to act as Principal Accordingly the prohibitory order passed against Sri Birakishore Patel, S/o.- Gopinath Patel, village-Palunipada. P.S.-Riamal, Dist. Deogarh at present Principal, KIMET. Chhendipada is vacated and proceeding against him u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure is dropped. O.I.C., Chhendipada P.S. is directed to execute this order by causing service a copy to the person concerned. Thus, even after the alleged letters of appointment of Petitioner and termination of service of opposite party No. 1 were issued, opposite party No. 1 was recognized as and allowed to function as Principal. Petitioner was not a party to W.P.(C) No. 15098 of 2007 instituted by the Principal, KIMET against the Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Angul and the O.I.C. of Chhendipada P.S. on the allegation that one Bansidhar Pradhan along with some miscreants were disturbing in smooth conduct of examination. In such circumstances, by order dated 23.11.2007, direction was issued to Superintendent of Police, Angul to ensure that the examination was conducted smoothly without interference by outsiders and, if necessary, by deployment of police force. In such circumstances, by order dated 23.11.2007, direction was issued to Superintendent of Police, Angul to ensure that the examination was conducted smoothly without interference by outsiders and, if necessary, by deployment of police force. It was also directed that above said Bansidhar Pradhan and his associates be removed from the campus. Thereafter, above said Bansidhar Pradhan appeared in the writ application as an intervener. On the basis of his submissions, order dated 30.11.2007 material part of which has been extracted above in paragraph-3, was passed directing the examination to be conducted by the Centre Superintendent deputed by SCTEVT without any interference by the opposite party No. 1 or above said Bansidhar Pradhan. Petitioner was not at all a party or an intervener in W.P.(C) No. 15098 of 2007. That apart, the order was confined to conduct of examination. The order directing removal of above said intervener remained in force despite direction that examination should be conduced by the above said Centre Superintendent. Annexure-A/1 to the show-cause filed by opposite party No. 2 which is a letter of District Magistrate and Collector. Angul dated 1.1.2008 under the caption "Implementation of Higher Court Order passed in Misc. Case No. 2247 of 2007 arising out of Criminal Revision Case No. 1483 of 2007", reveals that a copy of the letter was endorsed to opposite party No. 1 under Memo No. 3 dated 1.1.2008 describing him as Principal-Cum-Secretary-Cum-Goveming Body KIMET. That apart, in the report dated 3.2.2008 submitted by D.S.P. (Head Quarters) and S.D.P.O., I/ C, Angul to the learned Advocate General, Orissa, Cuttack it was stated that though Petitioner was visiting the institution regularly, he was yet to occupy the financial administration as well as other administration of the institution. Annexure-A/2 filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 is a letter from Government of Orissa, Industries Department to the District Magistrate and Collector, Angul. In the said letter upon reference to C.S. No. 31 of 2007 filed by Sri Bansidhar Pradhan in the Court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Angul challenging the constitution of new Governing Body as well as W.P.(C) No. 4128 of 2007 and Criminal Revision No. 1483 of 2007 of this Court, it has been categorically stated that new Governing Body of KIMET is a legally constituted body. Petitioner has also filed copy of orders dated 17.6.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7569 of 2008 instituted by Sri Gobinda Chandra Nayak, Trustee-cum-Chairman, Governing Body and opposite party No. 1 which is Annexure-9 to the additional affidavit. From the orders, it appears that Petitioner and Sri Bansidhar Pradhan filed applications for intervention. In Misc. Case Nos.7211 of 2008 and 7229 of 2008 arising out of the said writ application the interveners were permitted to open an account in the name of the institution and deposit all the proceeds of admission and readmission which were to take place in the said account in view of their claim to be managing the institution, "allegedly by force". It is apparent that Petitioner's claim of possession as on 17.6.2008 was based on management by force and, under the circumstances, the interveners were not permitted to operate the existing accounts. Rather, a separate account was allowed to be opened and maintained on the condition that the new account would be properly accounted for and produced by the interveners. Extract of order dated 17.6.2008 reads : Mr. Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that since on 19th and 20th of this month candidates are going to be admitted/readmitted in the institution, appropriate directions is required to be issued to protect the money collected as admission fees etc. I have heard learned Counsel for the interveners in the matter. Considering the submissions, it is directed that as the interveners are managing the institute now, allegedly by force, they shall open an Account in the name of the institution and deposit all the proceeds of admission and readmission which are to take place, in the said Account by maintaining proper account. Any withdrawals made from the said Account shall be properly accounted for by the interveners and such account shall be produced. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and claims of the parties. 20. Undoubtedly, there is scramble for taking over the management and control of the institution. Initial appointment of opposite party No. 1 as the Principal has not been questioned. On the contrary appointment of service of opposite party No. 1 is claimed to have been terminated. C.S. No. 31 of 2007 has been filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Angul assailing the authority of new Governing Body. Initial appointment of opposite party No. 1 as the Principal has not been questioned. On the contrary appointment of service of opposite party No. 1 is claimed to have been terminated. C.S. No. 31 of 2007 has been filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Angul assailing the authority of new Governing Body. No interim arrangement has been made by the Civil Court either in C.S. No. 31 of 2007 or in C.S. No. 155 of 2008. Opposite party No. 1 is being consistently referred to as the Principal of KIMET by the authorities. All these circumstances negate the basis of Petitioner's claim to have taken over possession of the institution by virtue of his assertion to have been appointed as Principal. Proceeding u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure was instituted taking into account the ground realities of apprehension of breach of peace. Direction to maintain status quo with regard to possession has also been made by this Court with the same objective. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to make out a case of violation of order of status quo by any of the opposite parties for which the CONTC is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the CONTC is dropped.