Order This contempt is taken up alongwith Civil Review No. 20 of 1996(R) as both arise out of the same order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3065 of 1995(R). 2. The petitioner filed the abovenamed writ petition for releasing of Capital Subsidy to the extent of Rs.3,68,877.37p. as per the Industrial Policy of the 1986 and assured by the respondents (Opposite parties in the case) but the said amount has not been paid on different pleas at a different context. 3. Such sort of cases are coming to this Court on earlier occasion also and the case was disposed of directing the opposite parties to disburse the amount of Capital Subsidy with 12 per cent interest therefrom, from the date of application within three months next. The order was passed on 13.11.1995 but even after the time frame period was expired, no payment was made and hence this petition was filed for issuing of contempts charge against the opposite parties. 4. Reply to the show cause have been filed by Opposite parties 1 to 3. O.P. No. 1 has not stated anything except that has endorsed the stand taken by the O.P. No. 2. O.P. No. 3's case is clear that after the order of this Court, he was writing again and again to O.P. No. 1 to release the amount so that the same can be paid to the petitioner. O.P. No. 2, Bageshwar Singh, who is General Manager of Industries Centre, Chaibasa has taken various stand in the reply to the show cause, to the effect that tile petitioner is not entitled to get Capital Subsidy on the ground that : (i) the installation of new machineries which were ensured have not been installed; (ii) that the application for Subsidy was not being processed through Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd. (Biscico.); and (iii) that the petitioner cannot claim Capital Subsidy under 1986 Industrial Policy, rather the factory can be covered under 1993 Industrial Policy as functioning was there after coming into force of the 1993 Industrial Policy. 5. The same grounds have been taken in the Review Petition also. 6. The main thrust of the Review Petition is of Annexure-2, letter. That letter is dated 16.4.1994, wherein various demands have been made for non-installation of machineries etc. 5. The same grounds have been taken in the Review Petition also. 6. The main thrust of the Review Petition is of Annexure-2, letter. That letter is dated 16.4.1994, wherein various demands have been made for non-installation of machineries etc. but it appears that the same O.P. No. 2 had recommended for Capital Subsidy vide Annexure-1, which was dated 14.12.1993 after inspection of the factory of the petitioner. It appears that only to stall the claim of the petitioner, the Opposite parties, now is taking such sort of pleas. From Annexure-B, it appears that the petitioner's third expansion• started functioning right from 1991 upto 1993. 7. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is covered by 1986 industrial Policy but not the subsequent Industrial Policy of 1993. 8. The third contention that the application of Capital Subsidy has not been processed through Biscico, has got no force at all because of the stand taken by the Biscico, that they writing time and again to the O.P.No.1 for release of the amount for making payment to the petitioner. 9. Last ground of the Opposite parties is that in no other case, interest as imposed by this Court was allowed and referred to Om Flour Mill's case, which disclosed that the interest was imposed in that case and also in subsequent cases by this Court, when there was no payment after the assurance was there from the side of the Opposite parties. 10. This Review has got no force and hence the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1000/-, which should be paid by the petitioner within one month next and on such payment the same should be deposited before Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Council of Legal & Advice. If not paid the same will be recovered as Government Revenue. 11. As regards the Contempt petition, the same plea which has been taken in Civil Review, has been taken. This reply to show cause by O.P. No. 2 and endorsed by O.P. No. 1 has got no force in view of the observations made above. While disposing this contempt petition, it is hereby directed that O.P. No. 1 and 2 have committed contempt of Court in not abiding by the direction of the Court within the peremptory period, but taking dilatory tactics with filing of Review Petition etc. While disposing this contempt petition, it is hereby directed that O.P. No. 1 and 2 have committed contempt of Court in not abiding by the direction of the Court within the peremptory period, but taking dilatory tactics with filing of Review Petition etc. But, on compassionate ground, a chance is again given to make payment within two months next positively and if not paid, punishment of imprisonment will be issued, if any information is received to this Court regarding noncompliance, without giving any scope of show cause. 12. From the conduct of Opposite party no. 3, it appears that his conduct is not derogatory as he very much wanted to comply with the Court's order but because of non-release of fund by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, the O.P. No. 3 could not pay any amount to the petitioner, hence show cause notice issued against the O.P. No. 3 is hereby dropped. 13. With this observation and direction, these cases are disposed of.