Judgment A.M. SAPRE, J. Heard Mr. AH Alamgir, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. A Deka, learned counsel for the respondents. This Misc. application is filed by the petitioners of Contempt Case (C) No. 97 of 2013 for recalling of the order dated 2.4.2014 by which the said contempt application was disposed of by passing following order: “None appears for the petitioners. Heard Mr. A Deka, learned counsel for the respondents. This contempt application arises out of the orders dated 14.6.2012 and 20.7.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) 5237 of 2011 and MC No. 1965 of 2012. Notice of this contempt application was issued to the respondent. The respondents are served and duly represented. Learned counsel for the respondent at the outset submitted that the order in question has since been complied with by the respondent and the same is clear from the letter dated 11.2.2013 sent by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioners purporting to be in compliance to the orders out of which this contempt application arises. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the records of the case and after taking into account the nature of the controversy raised, I am inclined to dismiss this contempt application with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the impugned compliance said to have been made by the respondents in compliance to the orders passed by this Court out of which this contempt application arises in appropriate proceeding in accordance with law in case if they feel dissatisfied with the compliance. Needless to observe, in case if any such legal recourse is taken by the petitioners by challenging the purported compliance, dismissal of this contempt application would not come in their way in prosecuting the remedy in accordance with law. Subject to the aforesaid observations, this contempt application fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rule nisi issued against the respondents is hereby recalled.” In my opinion, no case is made out for restoration of the contempt petition on facts stated in the application to recall the aforesaid order. Moreover, the petitioners would always be at liberty to take recourse to the remedy to get their grievance addressed in terms of liberty granted by this Court in order dated 2.4.2014. Moreover, the petitioners would always be at liberty to take recourse to the remedy to get their grievance addressed in terms of liberty granted by this Court in order dated 2.4.2014. It is with these observations, which are essentially in the nature of reiteration of what has been observed in the order dated 2.4.2014, this Misc. application fails and is hereby dismissed in limini.