JUDGMENT Indira Shah, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned CGC, appearing for and on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner who had set up lime calcinates plant and small scale industry in pursuant to the Government of Meghalaya New Industrial Policy, 1988 laid claim for transport subsidies for the periods 1996-97 and 01-04-1998 to 1999 payable to her under the Scheme of the Central Transport Subsidy. Aggrieved by the refusal to release the above subsidies led her to filing of WP (C) No. 110 [SH] of 2008. This Court vide order and judgment passed in said writ petition directed the respondents to release the transport subsidies for the periods from 01-04-1996 to 31-03-1997 and from 01-04-1998 to 04-12-1999 amounting to Rs. 6,55,216/- and Rs. 6,35,193/- respectively within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the judgment. The petitioner thereafter issued letters to the respondents, which were duly received by them on 14-02-2011 and 17-02-2011 but the respondents failed to comply with the direction of the judgment and order. Hence, this Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner for deliberate violation of the subsisting order of the Court. 2. Respondent No. 3, in his affidavit-in-opposition, inter alia, has contended that pursuant to the passing of judgment, a decision was taken by the Department in consultation with the Ministry of Law to file an appeal against the judgment. Legal remedies are being pursued by the department without having any intention of whatsoever nature to violate and/or flout the order passed by this Court. The Department has been instructed to await the out-come of the stay application filed before the Divisional Bench. It is also averred that if the same is decided against the department, the amount directed to be paid by this Court would be immediately paid. 3. Learned CGC for the respondents has submitted that the judgment passed in WP(C) No. 110 [SH] of 2008 has been challenged by the respondent authorities before the Divisional Bench, wherein the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing but the same could not be disposed of for want of constitution of Divisional Bench or when the Divisional Bench was constituted, the matter did not reach. The matter may be listed after disposal of Writ Appeal. 4. The matter may be listed after disposal of Writ Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as there is no stay order and in view of the show cause rely, this Court should direct the respondents to deposit the entire amount in the Court. 5. Learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that since the judgment in question has been challenged, it has not attained finality and hence, the contempt application should be kept in abeyance till the disposal of Writ Appeal. He has cited the case of Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Gautam Goswami and other, (2008)5 SCC 339 , wherein, it has been observed while dealing with such an application, the Court is concerned primarily with: (i) Whether the order passed by it has attained finality or not. (ii) Whether the same is complied with or not. 6. Per contra, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the learned Single Judge has not been stayed by the Division Bench and therefore, contempt petition should be disposed of on merits instead of waiting till disposal of the appeal. He has relied on the case of Dr. H. Phunindre Singh and other vs. K.K. Sethi and another, (1998)8 SCC 640 ; RP Singh (deceased) through LRS and other vs. State of Punjab & Others (1996)9 SCC 369 and Union of India and other vs. Subedar Devassy P.V. (2006)1 SCC 613 . In the cited case of Union of India and Others, (2006)1 SCC 613 , it has been observed as under:- 6. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against the rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. 7. In the case of Dr. H. Phunindre Singh and other (Supra), it was held that when the order passed by the single Judge was not stayed by the Division Bench, the Contempt petition should have been disposed of on merits instead of adjourning the same till disposal of appeal, so that question of deliberate violation of the subsisting order of the Court is considered and enforceability of the Court's order is not permitted to be diluted. 8. The respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 were directed to release the subsides for the periods from 01-04-1996 to 31-03-1997 and from 01-04-1998 to 04-12-1999 amounting to Rs. 6,55,216/- and Rs. 6,35,193/- respectively within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the judgment passed in WP(C) No. 110 [SH] of 2008. The respondent Nos. 1 and 5 were also directed to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid amounts from the date of pre-audit report till the realization of transport subsidies. The respondents received the letters issued by the petitioner on 24-05-2010. The respondents were represented by their Standing Counsels. The judgment was delivered on 10-05-2010. The petitioner filed the contempt petition after waiting for more than 9 months. 9. Respondent No. 3, in his affidavit-in-opposition, has contended that he was not a party-respondent to the writ application and he was not directed by this Court in terms of judgment and order dated 10-05-2010 to comply with the directions contained therein. The petitioner filed the contempt petition after waiting for more than 9 months. 9. Respondent No. 3, in his affidavit-in-opposition, has contended that he was not a party-respondent to the writ application and he was not directed by this Court in terms of judgment and order dated 10-05-2010 to comply with the directions contained therein. He, in Para 'H' of the affidavit, has also prayed to expunge his name from the list of contemnors and yet in Para 'G' it is contended that the department has been instructed to await the outcome of the stay application filed and if the same is decided against the Department, the amount directed to be paid by this Court would be immediately paid. 10. The appeal against the writ petition along with stay petition was filed after filing of the Contempt petition. There is no stay order. There was specific direction of this Court to pay the amount within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment. In view of the circumstances, the respondents are directed to pay/deposit the amount as directed in WP(C) No. 110 [SH] of 2008 in the Registry of this Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. This Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above.