JUDGMENT 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the reply filed by the respondents it is clear that now the only grievance of the petitioner is that recognition and approval for the session 2014-2015 has not been granted. 2. In the writ petition the only direction was to consider the application of the petitioner in case a fresh application is filed. It is said that the petitioner was prevented from filing the application because the petitioner was not given access to approach the website of the Council to submit the online application. 3. However, the respondents refutes the aforesaid. There being a dispute between the parties with regard to the petitioner being submitted application in accordance to rules, it is not appropriate to initiate action for contempt. 4. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which he was denied permission to submit his application for the academic session 2014-2015 it gives a fresh cause to the petitioner to agitate the matter in accordance with law but it is not appropriate to initiate action for contempt on such consideration. 5. Accordingly, we drop the proceedings and grant liberty to the petitioner to take fresh steps in case they have any grievance still subsisting in accordance with law. With the aforesaid this application stands disposed of.