- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS contempt application has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order and judgment dated 31-1-2000 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3875 of 2000. The order and judgment dated 31-1-2000 Annexure-3 to the contempt application is as under: "heard counsel for the parties. Learned standing Counsel prays for and is allowed two months time to file counter-affidavit. List thereafter. Until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the impugned suspension order dated 4- 10-99 passed by respondent No. 2 Annexure-1 to the writ petition shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be continued in service and paid his salary. Sd. V. M. Sahai, J. " The above order is an interim order by which final relief has been granted.
(3.) IT has been the constant view of the Court that final relief could not be given at the interim stage. The law has been settled in 1961 (2) SCR 590, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Shri Rameshwar Dayal and another, JT 1993 (2) SC 550; U. P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan and 2000 (10) SCC 311, State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta. Power under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act is to be exercised sparingly and only in serious cases. The Court's jurisdiction in contempt is not to be invoked unless there is real prejudice, which can be regarded as substantial interference with the due course of justice. The Court will not exercise its jurisdiction upon the mere question of its propriety.;