are of the considered view that the instant letters patent appeal was directed against an interlocutory order passed by learned Contempt Judge on 13.9.2000. Learned Contempt Judge after extracting the violation of the directions issued by the court on 11.7.1996, has granted one opportunity to the appellant to purge the contempt by complying with the directions issued in CWP Nos.13425 of 1995 and 13426 of 1995. We are not oblivious of the preposition that where some general directions are issued by a Court and in compliance of the same, an order is passed, which may not be in strict conformity with the directions, then it cannot be considered to be a wilful disobedience of the earlier order/directions issued by the Court. In such a situation, appropriate remedy is to avail the opportunity of judicial review by the aggrieved party as the same furnishes a fresh cause of action (refer to J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others AIR 1997 SC 113). However, in the present case, learned Contempt Judge by passing the aforesaid interlocutory order has only endeavored to determine the true purport and effect of the directions dated 11.7.1996 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in order to facilitate the compliance by the state authorities-appellant. Even learned Additional Advocate General has not raised any such argument, which may impel us to think that the learned Contempt Judge has substituted the order of the writ court passed on 11.7.1996 with his own order resulting in exceeding jurisdiction of a Contempt Judge by grabbing of jurisdiction of a writ court. The aforesaid course adopted by learned Contempt Judge culminated in passing of the final order disposing of the contempt petition on 11.2.2003, which has been placed on record as Annexure P.3 with their aplication moved U/o 6 R 17 CPC i.e C.M.No.788 of 2006. A perusal of the order shows that COCP No.735 of 1997 was
