Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.:- Heard Sri Shadab Ali, learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant alleges to have filed Writ Petition No.9157 of 2011 (M/s. Sana International Vs. E.C.G.C. & others) which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 22.02.2011. The relevant portion of the order dated 22.02.2011 is quoted hereunder:- "........After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, we are of the view that there is no illegality in the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the 2002 Act. The petitioner, if feels aggrieved, its remedy is to file an appeal under Section 17 of the 2002 Act. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner with Export Credit Guarantee Corporation is concerned, it is open for him to approach the Bank for forwarding its claim, if not already forwarded or to approach the Corporation in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations." From a perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is quite apparent that the proceedings initiated by the Bank under 2002 Act was found not to be illegal and in case the petitioner feels aggrieved he could file an appeal under Section 17 of the 2002 Act. The Court further made observation that insofar as the claim of the petitioner with Export Credit Guarantee Corporation is concerned, it would be open for him to approach the Bank for forwarding its claim, if not already forwarded or approach the Corporation in accordance with law. Learned counsel states that he has approached the Bank and the Bank has not forwarded his claim but has issued a letter saying that their Legal Advisor is not available, hence they are not proceeding. Learned counsel alleges contempt of the order dated 22.02.2011 on the basis of the letter of the Bank dated 17.03.2011, filed as Annexure No.12 to this affidavit supporting this contempt petition. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record, it is clear that there was no direction issued by the Division Bench to the Bank or to the Corporation. The Court was in fact of the view that the proceedings initiated by the Bank were not illegal and had made it open for the petitioner to approach the Bank for forwarding its claim to the Corporation. The Court was in fact of the view that the proceedings initiated by the Bank were not illegal and had made it open for the petitioner to approach the Bank for forwarding its claim to the Corporation. If the petitioner has approached the Bank for forwarding his claim and the claim is pending it cannot be stated that the opposite party has disobeyed any directions issued by the Writ Court. This contempt petition appears to be quite mis-conceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.