- (1.) S. Harkauli, J. By judgment dated 18-2-2002 in a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 6561 of 2002 this Court directed the opposite party to entertain the petitioner's application and to consider the same 'in accordance with law. '
(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the application has been entertained, considered and rejected by a reasoned order dated 17-5-2002. This contempt petition is based on the allegation that the decision dated 17-5-2002 is not "in accordance with law". If this allegation is correct, the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the same by way of a fresh writ petition and not by filing this contempt petition.
(3.) UNLESS it appears that the decision dated 17-5-2002 has been deliberately given 'in violation of the law' so as to circumvent the order of this Court or by way of vindictive action against the petitioner for having approached this Court, no contempt arises. When this Court directs a subordinate Court or authority to decide "in accordance with law", it means in accordance with law to the best understanding of the authority and therefore a mere error of judgment with regard to the legal position cannot result in contempt of Court. In view of the above, the contempt petition is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. .;