Sanjay Misra, J.;- Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party. 2. Compliance affidavit is available on record. Rejoinder affidavit filed today be taken on record. 3. Contempt is alleged of the order dated 25.05.2010 passed in the Writ Petition No.11534 of 2010 (Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others) which was decided in terms of the order dated 11.05.2010 passed in the Writ Petition No.1528 (MB) of 2010 (Vishram Vs. State of U.P. & others). 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the claim of the petitioner falls within Category-II as mentioned in the order passed by the Writ Court. 5. According to him, the representation was made by the petitioner to the Government and the Government has taken a decision to appoint a Committee to ascertain his claim which Committee has already given its report dated 06.06.2011 filed as Annexure No.6 of the compliance affidavit. According to learned counsel, the Committee has not considered the various claims of the petitioner like refund of stamp duty, security money, earnest money, registration fees, three months installments of contract amount and interest thereupon and as such have disobeyed the directions issued by the Writ Court. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has disputed the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and refers to the order of the Writ Court under Category-II and states that the Court clearly held that the petitioner can get compensation provided arbitration clause under the contract speaks for the same or otherwise by filing a suit. He states that the Writ Court provided another alternative to the petitioner of making representation to the Government to constitute a Committee to ascertain the claim regarding the aforesaid amounts. He states that the petitioner has chosen the third option of filing a representation to the Government and the Government has constituted a Committee to ascertain his claim and the Committee vide its report dated 06.06.2011 has made its recommendation. Learned Standing Counsel, therefore, states that the order passed by the Writ Court has been duly complied with since the representation of the petitioner has been considered by the Committee and there was no further direction issued by the Writ Court. 7. Learned Standing Counsel, therefore, states that the order passed by the Writ Court has been duly complied with since the representation of the petitioner has been considered by the Committee and there was no further direction issued by the Writ Court. 7. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the Category-II under the order of the Writ Court is quoted below:- "As far as the contracts existing even after 31st March, 2010 are concerned, the same cannot be said to be existing in view of the change of public policy by the Government nor the decision of such nature can be said to be arbitrary in any circumstances nor a private party can compel the State not to change the policy for his personal interest. Against this background, relief, if any, to such type of private agencies and/or contractors will be compensatory in nature. Therefore, they will get the compensation, provided arbitration clause under the contract speaks for the same, otherwise by filing a suit, or otherwise by making a representation to the Government to constitute a Committee to ascertain the claim also with regard to claim about stamp duty, security money, earnest money, registration fees, three months' instalments of the contracted amount deposited in advance and interest thereon, for refunding the same as expeditiously as possible." 8. From the aforesaid direction it appears that the petitioner could claim compensation provided arbitration clause was there in the contract or otherwise by filing a suit. Admittedly, the petitioner has neither gone for arbitration nor he has filed any suit for recovery of money. 9. The petitioner has chosen the third option made open by the Writ Court of filing a representation to the Government. In the affidavit of compliance filed by the Opposite Party No.1 it has been stated that a Committee was constituted by the Opposite Party No.1 as per the direction of the Government to ascertain the claim of the applicant. It has further been averred that the Committee has considered the claim and made its report dated 06.06.2011 which has been sent to the Government. It has further been averred that the Committee has considered the claim and made its report dated 06.06.2011 which has been sent to the Government. From a reading of the direction issued by the Writ Court it is quite clear that insofar as the third option available before the petitioner is concerned it was only with respect to making representation to the Government and the Government to constitute a Committee to ascertain the claim. That having been done it cannot be held that the opposite parties have disobeyed the directions issued by the Writ Court. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant makes two further submissions. The first submission is that the decision by the Committee in its report dated 06.06.2011 is incorrect inasmuch as his claims have not been considered in totality and the second is that whatsoever claim has been found due to the applicant has not been paid to him. 11. Insofar as the first submission is concerned, in case the petitioner has grievance against the report dated 06.06.2011 of the Committee he can always avail the remedy available to him in law for redressal of his grievance against the report dated 06.06.2011. Since the Contempt Court cannot in its jurisdiction adjudicate upon the correctness or incorrectness or legality or illegality of such a decision of the Committee hence such submission is misconceived. 12. Insofar as the second submission is concerned, clearly there was no direction passed by the Writ Court that the opposite parties were required to pay the amount to the applicant as determined by the Committee. In the absence of any specific direction by the Writ Court to pay the amount this Court in its contempt jurisdiction cannot read anything more in the order of the Writ Court than what has been provided. Learned counsel refers to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition to emphasise that payment was claimed. Be that as it may such a relief if at all claimed in the writ petition was subject matter of consideration by the writ court. No such relief for payment has been granted to the petitioner in the order contempt whereof is alleged. Hence such argument before the contempt court is quite misplace and cannot be accepted. Therefore, it is always open to the petitioner to get his grievance adjudicated before the appropriate forum, which is not in these contempt proceedings. 13. No such relief for payment has been granted to the petitioner in the order contempt whereof is alleged. Hence such argument before the contempt court is quite misplace and cannot be accepted. Therefore, it is always open to the petitioner to get his grievance adjudicated before the appropriate forum, which is not in these contempt proceedings. 13. This contempt petition is accordingly disposed of as above. 14. Notice, if any, issued is discharged. 15. No order is passed as to costs.