JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has alleged that the opposite party has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court dated 18.12.2012 as confirmed on 4.7.2013 passed in Writ-C No. 59846 of 2012. The order of the Writ Court dated 4.7.2013, which contains the order dated 18.12.2012, is quoted as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel. In all these writ petitions, the facts and issues being common, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. It shall be sufficient to refer to the facts of Writ Petition No.59851 of 2012, which is being treated as leading writ petition, for deciding all these writ petitions. By Writ Petition No.59851 of 2012, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice dated 3rd October, 2012 issued by respondent No.2 cancelling the allotment of the petitioner due to default in depositing a sum of Rs.3,61,487/-. The matter was taken up by the Division Bench of this Court and following order was passed on 18th December, 2012: - "Heard Sri V.C.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vikrant Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.K.Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1. The Bunch of the writ petitions raises similar issue and are being taken up together. In all the writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Saharanpur Development Authority, Saharanpur by which allotment of plot to the petitioners under Transport Nagar Yojna have been cancelled on the ground that the petitioners failed to deposit the amount as per demand letter issued by the Development Authority. The petitioners had earlier come to this Court by filing different writ petitions when the earlier demand notice was issued asking them to pay simple rate of interest along with penal interest and the value of the additional plots. Copy of one of the order dated 16.1.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 2273 of 2012 (Krishan Lal Chhabra Vs. State of U.P. & others) has been brought on record by which order the Court took a view that the penal interest can be forgiven. Copy of one of the order dated 16.1.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 2273 of 2012 (Krishan Lal Chhabra Vs. State of U.P. & others) has been brought on record by which order the Court took a view that the penal interest can be forgiven. However, 15% simple interest shall be paid by the petitioner and the petitioner agreed to pay the balance amount within three months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the demand notice was issued again, which has been filed at page 77 of the writ petition. In the case of some of the petitioners the cost of the plot was also included and the rate of corner plots charges were calculated @10% whereas it was only 5%. Sri P.K.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Development Authority submits that those petitioners, who do not want to take the plot, it was open for them to give in writing before the Saharanpur Development Authority and then no charge of additional plots can be taken from them. He, however, submits that the petitioners were liable to pay other demand and when they did not pay the demanded amount, there was no option before the Development Authority but to cancel the plots in view of the earlier direction of this Court dated 16.1.2012 as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to pay the entire demand along with 15% simple interest till the date of payment and the additional cost of plots @ 5% for the corner plots. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners be not asked to deposit the value of the excess plots which they do not intend to take. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that ends of justice be served in giving one more opportunity to the petitioners to deposit the amount @ 15% simple interest along with the cost of plots till the date of payment plus 5% additional of the corner plots. It shall be open for the petitioners, who have been given notice to pay the value of the excess plot, to take excess plots or not and if they are exercising their option not to take the excess plots, amount shall not be charged provided they are give in writing that they will not take the excess plots. It shall be open for the petitioners, who have been given notice to pay the value of the excess plot, to take excess plots or not and if they are exercising their option not to take the excess plots, amount shall not be charged provided they are give in writing that they will not take the excess plots. The said payment shall be taken within one month. The petitioners shall deposit the amount of the cost of the plot along with 15% simple interest plus 5% corner charges within two months from today. It will be open for the Development Authority to make additional demand after payment is received by the Bank from the petitioners if the payments are not according to the current calculation. List the matter after two weeks." 3. This Court by order dated 18th December, 2012 granted opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the amount at the rate of 15% simple interest along with the cost of plots till the date of payment plus 5% additional of the corner plots. The petitioner was also directed to exercise his option for not taking the excess plots. It is submitted that petitioner has deposited the amount as per order of this Court. 4. In view of deposit of the amount, the action taken by issuing the notice impugned itself has come to an end. Nothing survives in the writ petition. 5. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly." (Emphasis supplied) 6. In paragraph 47 of the affidavit filed in support of this application, it has been stated that cause of action arose on 8.7.2015 when after having the knowledge of the order dated 18.12.2012 the respondent issued a fresh order raising further demand. In paragraph 31 of the affidavit, it has been stated that amount was deposited by the applicant in pursuance to the order passed by the Writ Court but still additional amount is being demanded by the respondent. Admittedly as stated in paragraph 33 of the affidavit, the said order dated 8.7.2015 was challenged by the applicant by filing a writ petition being Writ-C No. 47519 of 2015 before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2015. The said order dated 24.8.2015 is quoted as under: "Heard Sri V.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vikrant Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. Sri P.K. Singh, Advocate is present on behalf of the State-respondents. The said order dated 24.8.2015 is quoted as under: "Heard Sri V.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vikrant Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. Sri P.K. Singh, Advocate is present on behalf of the State-respondents. Against the order impugned petitioner has statutory alternative remedy under Section 41 (3) before the State Government. Writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Government." 7. Therefore, from perusal of record it is very much clear that the grievance of the applicant is against the order dated 8.7.2015, which was challenged by him unsuccessfully before this Court. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has alternative remedy before the State Government under Section 41 (3) of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. 8. In such view of the matter, I do not find that there is any willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 9. The present contempt application is accordingly dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be placed on record of Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5473 of 2015.