1. We are surprised that when an order of this Court was not obeyed the petitioner felt that he must invoke the jurisdiction of this Court once again under Art 226 of the Constitution. It was explained by Sri. Nayanar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that it was so done because in the first order no time limit was fixed for compliance. It is not the law that when no time limit is fixed, the order 'is not required to be complied with. If the time limit is not fixed, the order has to be complied within a reasonable time. What in a given case is the reasonable time depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case When an order is made by this Court in exercise of the power under Art.226 of the Constitution, it has all the efficacy and vitality and has to be obeyed. If it is not obeyed the party cannot once again approach this Court for securing what he thinks a stronger order by securing fixation of time limit for compliance. That is precisely what the petitioner has done by approaching this Court once again and on the second occasion the petitioner secured a direction to comply with the earlier judgment within the specified time. This is clearly impermissible