1. This is a contempt petition complaining' that the orders directing maintainance of status quo obtained by the petitioners in W.P. No. 5327 of 1996 on 2.1.1997 has been breached by the contemnors.

2. The factual back ground in which the order of status quo came to be passed needs mention in brief. In the writ petition filed by them, the claim of the petitioners is that under the newly framed M.P. Mining Rules, 1996, the right with regard to quarrying of sand and Bajri vests only in the Gram Panchayat and the respondent M.P. State Mining Corporation has no right to issue tender and grant quarry leases for the above minerals which are within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat where quarries are situated.

3. In the petition filed by the petitioner to restrain the M.P. State Mining Corporation Limited from exercising right of mining in relation to the above minerals from the quarry situated within Gram Panchayats, the Court passed the order of status quo in the following terms:

"Heard Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Counsel, with Shri R.K. Shrivastava, Adv. for the petitioners.

Learned counsel has invited attention to EX.P-5 and has contended in respect of the two quarries Malkachhar and Neemkheda mentioned respectively at serial No. 10 and 20 in the said document, that the direction to send application to the State Govt. is in violation of rule 7 of the M.P. Mineral Rules, 1996. The learned counsel has submitted that these quarries are not stone quarries and the said application cannot, therefore, be considered by the State Govt. in accordance with circular referred to in the document Ex. P-5.

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel, it is directed that the respondents shall maintain status quo in respect of the two quarries namely, Malkachhar and Neemkheda till the next date.

List this petition before Regular Bench for hearing on admission and interim relief on 7.1.1997."

4. The above writ petition when was listed after vacation before Regular Bench has been admitted for decision on merit by issuance of a show cause notice to the respondents. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the contempt petition made strenuous efforts from the documents on record filed by him to show that despite the knowledge of the order of status quo dated 2.1.1997 the Corporation has granted right of winning away the mineral sand to a private party, respondent No.4 Indraprastha Engineering Company. It is submitted that in order to cover up the violation of the stay order, they have ante-dated the receipt books from which the transit passes for collecting mineral were issued to the respondent No.4, private party.

5. Shri P.K. laiswal learned counsel who appeared for the Corporation (respondents Nos. 1 and 3) in his reply submitted that on the date of passing of the order of Status quo on 2.1.1997, the Corporation has on the basis of quarry lease granted to it had already issued tenders and after accepting them, had issued transit passes. The quarrying operations, therefore, had already commenced on 2.1.1997 before the order of stay or status quo was served on the Corporation and its authorities. It is submitted therefore, that the order of status quo cannot be said to have been breached.

6. In the course of hearing, a question arose as to what was the intention behind the order of the Court in directing maintenance of status quo. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1987 Supp. SCC 394) "the expression 'status quo' is undoubtedly a term of ambiguity and at time given rise to doubt and difficulty. According to the ordinary legal connotation, the term 'status quo' implies the existing state of things at any given point of time."

7. The word' status quo' has, therefore, to be construed in the back-ground of facts which led to the passing of such an order. In the instant case, the petitioners objected to the mining rights exercised by the Corporation