ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of order dated 29.10.2018 passed by this Court in WPC No.2986 of 2018 by the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved with the action of respondents in starting the work of erection of electric tower over the land of petitioner, petitioner has filed writ petition in which the Court has passed interim order staying the erection of tower on petitioner’s land bearing kh. no.103/1 at village-Sapos. Even after passing of interim order respondents have erected the electric tower which is clearly appearing from the photographs annexed as Annexure C-2. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhoo Nath Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P 1993 SCC OnLine All. 242. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the writ petition was filed suppressing the material fact. Prior to filing of writ petition, construction/erection of tower work was completed. Notice was issued to the petitioner for commencing the work order on 02.04.2018 and the amount of compensation of crop was also deposited in the account of petitioner on 02.05.2018. Copy of notice as also the statement of account of petitioner is filed as Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2. He also submits that on the date of passing of order on 29.10.2018, no one appeared on behalf of Power Grid Corporation of India. Petitioner has not submitted any document to show that as to when the petitioner has brought to the knowledge of respondent about the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by this Court. Order dated 29.10.2018 is an interim order which was in force till the “next date of hearing”. The case was thereafter listed on 30.04.2019 and 06.05.2019, however the interim order was not extended thereafter. He contended that unless and until interim order of stay is extended it may not be considered that after first date of hearing from the date of stay, interim order continued. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 470 . He next contended that the petitioner has also not mentioned the specific date or period on which electric tower was erected. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 470 . He next contended that the petitioner has also not mentioned the specific date or period on which electric tower was erected. In absence of specific pleading with regard to erection of tower after passing of interim order, it cannot be said that respondents have committed contempt of Court. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Banwar Lal & Ors. Vs. G. Kalavathi (Dead) By Lrs. & Or (2008) 11 SCC 547 . 4. I have heard heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with contempt petition. 5. Perusal of the proceedings of writ petition bearing WPC No.2986 of 2018, order of which is subject matter of the contempt petition would show that after passing of interim order of stay, case was listed on 30.4.2019. On the said date, case was adjourned for next week. Again the case was listed on 06.05.2019. On the said date, petitioner sought for time to file reply. On 06.05.2019 also, interim order was not extended and thereafter the case was listed on further three dates. However, on the said dates also there was no order for extending interim order or fresh interim order is passed. Perusal of the contempt petition would show that petitioner has not enclosed any document to show the date of placing the order passed by this Court before the respondents. He however only submitted that after passing of interim order, petitioner immediately paid the process fee and the same was served upon them. It is also not the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that along with notice copy of interim order of stay was also enclosed and served upon respondent No.3 therein. After 29.10.2018, case was listed for first time on 30.04.2019. Respondent No.3 therein submitted reply on 22.02.2019 raising objection that the tower subject matter of writ petition, bearing Tower No.26/3 was erected before 23.09.2018. In the reply filed to contempt petition also similar pleading is made specifically mentioning that erection of tower on applicant's land had already been completed on 23.09.2018. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) has held as under:- “12. In the reply filed to contempt petition also similar pleading is made specifically mentioning that erection of tower on applicant's land had already been completed on 23.09.2018. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) has held as under:- “12. The term of the order of the learned Judge, in our opinion, does not leave any manner of doubt whatsoever that the interim order was only extended from time to time. The interim order having been extended till a particular date, the contention raised by the respondents herein that they were under a bona fide belief that the injunction order would continue till it was vacated cannot be accepted. 13. In our considered opinion, the purport of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panipat, in extending the order of injunction is absolutely clear and explicit. It may be true that the date was preponed to 28.07.1998, but from a bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, it is evident that the order of injunction was not extended. Even on the subsequent dates, the order of injunction was not extended. In fact, no order extending the period was passed nor any fresh order of injunction was passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, subsequent thereto.” 6. In the contempt petition, petitioner has not specifically pleaded the date on which the electric tower has been erected. In absence of any specific date of erection of tower, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that tower standing over his land bearing Tower No.26/3 is erected during the period when the order of status quo was in force is not appearing from record. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Banwar Lal (supra) while considering whether the contempt has been committed to the order of status quo, has observed thus :- “33. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Division Bench in the impugned judgment in holding that the appellants had committed contempt of the said order dated 14.9.1995. There is no ambiguity that while the direction to maintain status quo for three months were given on 14.9.1995, the contempt petition was filed only in October, 1999. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Division Bench in the impugned judgment in holding that the appellants had committed contempt of the said order dated 14.9.1995. There is no ambiguity that while the direction to maintain status quo for three months were given on 14.9.1995, the contempt petition was filed only in October, 1999. The period for which status quo was directed to be maintained came to an end on 14.12.1995 and there is nothing on record to indicate that the order of status quo was ever extended. The fact that construction was going on in the land in question came to the knowledge of the respondents herein on 19.11.1999 when Smt. G. Kalavathi visited the property and thereafter steps were set in motion for filing of the contempt petition. Since there is nothing to indicate whether the construction work was being carried on during the period when the order of status quo was in force and the contempt petition was filed almost four years after the order of status quo ceased to operate, it is difficult for us to appreciate as to how the Division Bench of the High Court could have found the appellants herein to have committed contempt of Court. The findings of the High Court in respect of the same must be held to be contrary to the materials on record.” 8. In the aforementioned decision Hon’ble Supreme Court considered that order of status quo was ever extended and further that there is nothing on record that the construction work as alleged was being carried out during the period when order of status quo was in force. 9. Judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Shambhu Nath (supra) is distinguishable on facts. 10. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case as also, decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) and Banwar Lal (supra), I do not find any good ground to continue with the contempt petition any further. 11. Accordingly, contempt proceedings initiated against respondents is hereby dropped. Notice issued to respondents stands discharged. 12. Contempt Petition is accordingly closed.