Judgment : Heard Mr K Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr B Chetry and Mr KK Parasar, learned counsel for the respondents. This contempt application is filed by the petitioner of WP(C) 20/2012 and it arises out of an order dated 23.5.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in the said writ petition. Counsel for the respondents at the outset submits that order under consideration out of which this contempt application arises has since been complied with on 5.3.2014. Without going into the submission that compliance is said to have been made by the respondent, I am inclined to dispose of this contempt application granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the purported compliance said to have been made by the respondent in appropriate forum. In my view, it may not be proper to examine the legality and correctness of the purported compliance said to have been made by the respondent in limited contempt jurisdiction and, instead, it can be more appropriately examined in other proceedings where the scope and jurisdiction is much larger to examine all issues arising in the case including that of purported compliance also. It is for this reason, I do not consider it proper to keep the contempt petition pending and, accordingly dispose of the same. In case, if any such remedy is resorted to by the petitioner, then in such case, the issue will be examined in such proceedings in accordance with law. It is made clear that disposal of this contempt application would not come in the way of the petitioner to prosecute the remedy. It is with these observations, the contempt application stands disposed of. Rule nisi issued against the respondents stands recalled.