JUDGMENT : The petitioners have approached this Court through this Contempt of Court Case alleging that the respondent, in his capacity as the 'Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod', had, in purported compliance with the direction of this Court in the judgment dated 12.04.2018 in W.P. (C).No.13043/2018, that required him to pass an order under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order [KLU Order], passed an order dated 22.05.2018, wherein he relied on Section 27A(3) of the Ordinance No.13/2018, to hold the petitioner disentitled to the benefit under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order. The said order passed by the respondent was impugned by the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.19129/2018, where, this Court, by an interim order dated 11.06.2018, stayed the order, to the extent it required the petitioners to comply with the provisions of Section 27A(3) of the Ordinance No.13/2018. During the pendency of the said writ petition, however, the respondent passed yet another order dated 21.06.2018 removing the anomaly noticed in the earlier order dated 22.05.2018, and granting the petitioners permission to convert the user of the land in terms of Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order. In the said order also, the respondent inserted a condition stipulating that the benefit of the order would enure to the petitioners only for the limited purpose specified in the order, viz. for the issuance of a building permit for construction of a building in the said land. The present Contempt of Court Case has been preferred by the petitioners, citing the insertion of the said condition in Annexure A4 order as suggestive of a contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent while complying with the directions in the judgment dated 12.04.2018. The learned Government Pleader would submit, on instructions, that the offending clause in Annexure A4 order was passed taking note of the application dated 19.11.2017 preferred by the petitioner under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, and it was under those circumstances that the condition was inserted. I note, however, that the said condition is one that goes against the scheme of Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, inasmuch as it imposes a restriction on the rights obtained by an applicant under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order and prevents the utilisation of the order for any other purpose contemplated under the KLU Order. I note, however, that the said condition is one that goes against the scheme of Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, inasmuch as it imposes a restriction on the rights obtained by an applicant under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order and prevents the utilisation of the order for any other purpose contemplated under the KLU Order. Thus, the imposition of such a condition in Annexure A4 order, while patently beyond the powers of the RDO under the KLU Order, is also one that militates against the specific directions in the judgment referred above, which obliged the respondent to pass an order on merits in accordance with the provisions of Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order. 2. Finding however that Annexure A4 order, with the deletion of condition No.(3) therein would result in an order passed in compliance with the directions in Annexure A2 judgment, I deem it appropriate to quash condition No.(3) in Annexure A4 order of the respondent, invoking the inherent power of this Court to undo the consequences flowing from an act done in violation of the directions of this Court in Annexure A2 judgment. The power of this Court to pass such an order under the contempt jurisdiction is settled through the decisions in DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. -[ (1996) 4 SCC 622 ], Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah -[AIR 1975 Madras 270] and Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun [AIR 1986 Calcutta 220], all of which are referred to in Ghanshyam Sarda v. Sashikant JHA, Director, M/s. J.K. Jute Mills Company Limited and Others – [ (2017) 1 SCC 599 ] at page 619. The Contempt of Court Case is thus closed, by quashing condition No.(3) in Annexure A4 order of the respondent.