JUDGMENT Abhay S. Oka, C.J. - In the morning session, Shri K.B. Monesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-petitioner argued the matter. For passing orders, the matter was kept at 2.30 p.m. When the matter was called out at 2.30 p.m., another counsel Shri Umesh H.M., again started arguing on merits though we had expressed an opinion in the morning session that we are not inclined to entertain this contempt petition. Only after the Court objected to the attempt to re-argue the case, the learned counsel stopped arguing. 2. The breach alleged in this petition is of an ex parte ad interim order dated 4th December 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the complainant. In the writ petition, the challenge was to the order dated 17th September 2019 by which, the complainant was removed from the post of Grama Sahayaka. By the order of which breach is committed as alleged, the learned Single Judge, while issuing the notice, granted stay of the order dated 17th September 2019 till the next date. 3. As can be seen from the order dated 4th December 2019, it is an ex parte ad interim order by which, stay was granted to the order dated 17th September 2019. There is no specific order passed by the learned Single Judge of reinstatement of the complainant into service. 4. The complainant has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the said Act of 1971'). The job of the complainant comes to an end after bringing to the notice of this Court the alleged incident of breach. Whether an action is to be initiated under the said Act of 1971 is a matter to be decided by the Court. The Court always retains a discretion in such matters. 5. As stated earlier, the complainant was removed from the post of Grama Sahayaka by the order dated 17th September 2019. After a lapse of more than two months, the said order was stayed. The respondents in the writ petition were not heard. The order of removal had become operative when the stay was granted. There is no specific order passed by the learned Single Judge directing reinstatement of the complainant. 6. After a lapse of more than two months, the said order was stayed. The respondents in the writ petition were not heard. The order of removal had become operative when the stay was granted. There is no specific order passed by the learned Single Judge directing reinstatement of the complainant. 6. At this stage, we must make useful reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF J & K vs MOHD. YAQOOB KHAN AND OTHERS, (1992) 4 SCC 167 . Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said decision are relevant which read thus: "5. We find great force in the argument of Mr Salve that so long the stay matter in the writ petition was not finally disposed of, the further proceeding in the contempt case was itself misconceived and no orders therein should have been passed. Mr Bhandare appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, who is respondent before us, has strenuously contended that the orders passed in the contempt proceedings should be treated to have disposed of the stay matter in the writ petition also. He laid great emphasis on the fact that the counsel for the respondents in the writ petition had been heard before the orders were issued. He invited our attention to the merits of the claim. It is argued that the order dated March 19, 1990 must, in the circumstances, be treated to have become final and, therefore, binding on the State and the High Court was right in issuing the further direction by way of implementation of earlier order. 6. We do not agree. The scope of a contempt proceeding is very different from that of the pending main case yet to be heard and disposed of (in future). Besides, the respondents in a pending case are at a disadvantage if they are called upon to meet the merits of the claim in a contempt proceeding at the risk of being punished. It is, therefore, not right to suggest that it should be assumed that the initial order of stay got confirmed by the subsequent orders passed in the contempt matter." (underlines supplied) 7. There is another decision of the Apex Court in the case of MOHD. IQBAL KHANDAY vs ABDUL MAJID RATHER, (1994) 4 SCC 34 . Paragraph 14 of the said decision is relevant which reads thus: "4. There is another decision of the Apex Court in the case of MOHD. IQBAL KHANDAY vs ABDUL MAJID RATHER, (1994) 4 SCC 34 . Paragraph 14 of the said decision is relevant which reads thus: "4. The law of contempt is based on sound public policy by punishing any conduct which shakes the public confidence in the administration of justice. The order dated 21-9-1992 while directing notice also required the appellant to accord promotion to the respondent as Associate Professor. It requires to be noticed here that is the main prayer in the writ petition itself. In such circumstances, the correctness of such an interim order is open to serious doubt. For a moment, it is not to be understood that the court has no power to pass such an order but the question is whether while granting such interim reliefs the discretion of the court has been correctly exercised? If the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, the respondent would have gained an undue advantage of getting a promotion undeservedly. But we are not on the merits of the interim order." 8. Apart from the interim order dated 4th December 2019 of stay, there is no specific order passed for reinstatement of the complainant. This is a case where it is unjust to initiate contempt proceedings without giving an opportunity to the respondents to contest the prayer for interim order in the writ petition. The order of which the breach is complained of is an ex parte order. Therefore, this is not a fit case to initiate the proceedings under the said Act of 1971. 9. We further make it clear that the observations made in this petition are for the limited purpose of considering whether action deserves to be initiated under the said Act of 1971. None of these observations shall be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy in the pending writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. 11. The pending interlocutory application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.