COPC No.13 of 2004. 23.5.2008. Present: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Municipal Corporation was added as a party respondent in the contempt petition though there was no allegation against it. This contempt petition arises out of an ad- interim order dated 13th March, 2003 wherein it was ordered “In the meantime, status quo existing as on date with respect to construction over the land in question shall be maintained by the parties”. The allegation of the petitioner while filing the contempt petition dated 23rd March, 2004 is that the contemner has constructed retaining wall and has violated the interim order for status quo. In response, the contemner-opposite party had admitted that the retaining wall has been constructed because of the necessity due to heavy rain on 26th August, 2003. After the said admission on the part of the contemner, nothing left to be examined regarding the contempt. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the contemner has tendered unconditional apology though initially had not done so while filing the counter affidavit and has requested that the contemner being a lady 2 and mistake is a bonafide one, warning will suffice the purpose. After the above arguments of the parties, the Bench made an effort to find out when the charge was framed and thereafter what were the orders passed in the writ petition. We found that no charge has been framed against the contemner till date. Further, we find that on 5th January, 2005, interim order dated 10th March, 2003 has been vacated and ultimately the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy and all the interim orders were vacated forthwith by an order dated 25th February, 2005. In this background, technically the contemner cannot be punished. The Apex Court in Om Prakash Jaiswal vs. D.K. Mittal and another, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1136 has held that the charge would be framed in the Contempt Petition within one month from the date of cause of action and we find that no charge is framed. No interference is required in the contempt petition. The contempt petition stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. 23rd May, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), J. (tr)