JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J. 1. M/s. Payal Chemicals, petitioner herein, has filed this contempt application for non-compliance of the order dated 13.6.2003 passed in W.p.(C), No. 1966 of 2002. The petitioner was granted permanent registration to establish its unit by the State Government of UP. By virtue of the same, it has been receiving supply of coal from Coal India Limited. Suddenly supply of coal to its unit was suspended. Therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition, being W.P (C) No. 1966/2002, for necessary direction. Ultimately learned Single Judge by the order dated 13.6.2003 directed for restoration of coal supply. Even then the order has not been complied. Hence this contempt application. 2. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the order dated 13.6.2003 has not been complied with in spite of the positive direction being given by the learned Single Judge. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that after passing of the order dated 13.6.2003. the respondents filed review application before the learned Single Judge for making correction over some factual aspects and that since the same is pending, the contempt application is not maintainable. 3. When the matter came up on 21.6.2007, this Court passed an order directing the respondents to dispose of the representation as it was admitted that the same was received by the respondents. Accordingly, the respondents disposed of the representation sent by the petitioner by a reason order dated 2.7.2007. On the basis of the said order dated 2.7.2007, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the order passed by this Court on 13.6.2003 has been complied with by passing a reasoned order dated 2.7.2007 and as such, contempt proceedings may be dropped. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 2.7.2007 does not show compliance of the order passed by this Court on 13,6.003. 4. I have considered the contentions of the respective parties and gone through the impugned orders. 5. The relevant portion of the order dated 13.6.003 passed by this Court is as follows: 4. In my opinion, the petitioner may make an application for restoration of linkage and the respondents are under obligation to consider restoration of linkage which stood snapped. 4. I have considered the contentions of the respective parties and gone through the impugned orders. 5. The relevant portion of the order dated 13.6.003 passed by this Court is as follows: 4. In my opinion, the petitioner may make an application for restoration of linkage and the respondents are under obligation to consider restoration of linkage which stood snapped. The representation of the petitioner shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Maya Fuel v. BCCL. 5. Taking into consideration all these facts this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file representation before the concerned authority for restoration of linkage and the latter shall consider and take decision in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks from the date of filing of the representation in the manner indicated in the aforesaid judgment. 6. Reading of para 5 of the said order would clearly indicate that a positive direction has been given to the respondents to consider the representation filed by the petitioner before the concerned authority for restoration of the linkage and the latter shall consider and take decision in accordance with law and in the manner indicated in the judgment passed in the case of Mava Fuel v. BCCL. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for both the parties would now agree that the above M/s. Maya Fuel case would not apply to the present facts of this case as the issue involved in that case was mainly confined in respect to quantum of supply of coal and not in respect to the issue in question. That is the reason as to why the respondents were constrained to file review application before the learned Single Judge, for necessary modifications and clarifications. Admittedly that is still pending. 8. Though it is mentioned in para 4 of the order of the learned Single Judge that the respondents are under obligation to consider restoration of linkage which was snapped, it does not show that any positive direction has been issued. On the contrary, it is an admitted position that the issue involved in the instant case is not similar to that of the case of M/s. Maya Fuels under reference in the order dated 13.6.2003, and therefore, a review petition has been filed before the learned Single Judge. 9. On the contrary, it is an admitted position that the issue involved in the instant case is not similar to that of the case of M/s. Maya Fuels under reference in the order dated 13.6.2003, and therefore, a review petition has been filed before the learned Single Judge. 9. Under those circumstance, I do not find any material to hold that there is deliberate violation of the Courts order dated 13.6.2007. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order dated 2.7.2007, if so advised, before the appropriate forum. The contempt application is dismissed. No order as to costs.