JUDGMENT : - Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioners. This contempt application arises out of an order dated 26.03.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No.535 of 2001. Counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the order under consideration out of which this contempt application arises has since been complied with by order dated 05.02.2014 (Annexure-21 to the contempt application). Without going into the aforesaid disputed question and the fact that compliance is said to have been made by the respondents, we are inclined to dispose of this contempt application granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the purported compliance said to have been made by the respondents in appropriate forum. In our view, it may not be proper to examine the legality and correctness of the purported compliance said to have been made by the respondents 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, we 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 is hereby recalled. No cost.