JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Both these contempt petitions arise out of similar orders, as such, are being decided together. 2. Application for taking objections to the affidavit of compliance along with affidavit of compliance filed today in court is taken on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 4. These contempt petitions arise out of orders dated 21.7.2014 and 22.12.2014 passed in above writ petitions. The operative portion of order dated 21.7.2015 on reproduction reads as under: - "Thus, we give liberty to the petitioner(s) to prefer representation before the Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority within two weeks who shall, if such representation is moved within the aforesaid period, decided the same taking into consideration order dated 6.2.1997 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kallu Ram Ahuja and Another (supra) by a reasoned order, expeditiously, say, within six weeks from the date representation is moved and communicate the decision to the petitioner(s) forthwith. It shall be obligatory for the Vice-Chairman of Lucknow Development Authority to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner(s) in case such prayer is made in the representation. The Vice-Chairman shall also provide opportunity of hearing to all those who are to be affected and who were involved in the auction proceedings. For a period two months, or till disposal of the representations, status quo, as it exits today, shall be maintained by the parties." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 21.7.2014 was subsequently modified and the words, 'Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority' were substituted by the words, 'State of U.P'. The order dated 22.12.2014 on reproduction reads as under: - "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgment and order dated 21.7.2014 is corrected. The words, "Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority" are substituted by the words, "State of U.P. The judgment and order is corrected accordingly." 6. It is to be noted that during the pendency of writ petition the State Government vide office order dated 28.10.2015 has disposed of the representation of the petitioner with direction to Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner as raised in the representation. 7. Mr. It is to be noted that during the pendency of writ petition the State Government vide office order dated 28.10.2015 has disposed of the representation of the petitioner with direction to Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner as raised in the representation. 7. Mr. B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 28.10.2015 cannot be said to be compliance of the writ court's order as the Secretary, Urban Development, Government of U.P. has not considered the order dated 6.2.1997 as well as decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court n the case of Kalu Ram Ahuja and another Vs. Delhi Development Authority; (2008) 10 SCC 696 and has wrongly referred the matter to the Vice Chairman, LDA, although, the State Government was required to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. 8. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that there is substantial compliance of writ court's order. The State Government is of the view that the concerning authority in this regard is Vice Chairman, LDA and, as such, the direction has been issued to Vice Chairman, LDA to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. 9. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 10. A perusal of order dated 28.10.2015 passed by Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of U.P. indicates that the said order has been passed in compliance of the directions issued by writ courts vide orders dated 21.7.2014 and the State Government has also taken cognizance of the order dated 22.12.2014. The State Government through its Secretary has come to conclusion that the Vice Chairman, LDA is the concerning authority to decide the representation of petitioner, as such, the matter has been referred to Vice Chairman, LDA who is the appropriate authority to do the needful. 11. I am of the view that the orders dated 28.10.2015 amounts to substantial compliance of writ court's directions. The representations preferred by the petitioner have been decided and the matter has been referred to the Vice Chairman, LDA. 11. I am of the view that the orders dated 28.10.2015 amounts to substantial compliance of writ court's directions. The representations preferred by the petitioner have been decided and the matter has been referred to the Vice Chairman, LDA. In case the petitioner feels that the order dated 28.10.2015 is not sustainable as it does not consider the order dated 6.2.1997 as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalu Ram Ahuja and another (supra), the petitioner may take appropriate steps to challenge the said order, however, for that purpose the contempt petition cannot be said to be maintainable. 12. With these observations, writ petition is dismissed. Notice stand discharged.