Held, logic of reasoning of High Court was that if corrigendum dated, 22nd June, 2002 had to be ignored as it was issued in violation of interim Order of stay dated, 12th June, 2002, the charge dated, 29th April, 2002 would be false and incorrect as admittedly first Respondent did not receive copy of Order in "Misc. case No. 238/2001", as there was no proceedings with the number "Misc. case No. 238/2001" . The Corrigendum reserved liberty to Government to take action in accordance with law . The Corrigendum was issued under bona fide impression that correction of typographical error in charge memorandum could be issued when there was order of interim stay, and, therefore, there was no intention to violate interim stay. High Court was justified in closing contempt proceedings but it was not justified in expressing disapproval and issuing warning to senior officers of State Government . Civil Appeal No. 8509/2003 dismissed - Civil Appeal No. 8510/2003 allowed in part by deleting adverse remarks against senior officers of State.
