ORDER : R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. This Misc. Civil Application is filed by the original petitioner under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 14.12.2016 passed in Civil Application (For Direction) No. 10596 of 2016 in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 71 of 2016. 2. In the writ petition, which is filed by way of Public Interest Litigation, the applicant-original petitioner, has questioned the Development Permission (Rajachitthi) granted in favour of certain developers, who have already constructed buildings and/or buildings are under construction, on the ground that such buildings in violations of GDCR. However, no interim order was passed therein. 3. For the buildings which are already completed, when permission was sought to run the multiplexes by issuing NOC/licenses etc., the applicants in Civil Application (For Direction) No. 10596 of 2016 have requested that in view of the pendency of the Civil Application, their applications for grant of NOC/licenses were not being considered by the authorities. In that view of the matter, this Court vide order dated 14.12.2016 has passed the following order: “3. Though we have issued notice to the respondents, no interim orders are passed in the main matter or by way of any separate civil application. In that view of the matter, there is no reason for not considering the request for grant of NOC and licence in favour of the present applicants. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this application clarifying that the respondents to consider the application of the applicants for grant of NOC and licence provided the applicants satisfy all the requirements as per law.” 4. In this application, it is the case of the applicant that the respondents have granted NOC/licenses contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 14.12.2016 It is submitted that NOC/licenses were granted contrary to GDCR and Gujarat Cinema Rules, 2014 in favour of Southwest Mall Multiplex and Bansal Mall-multiplex. 5. In this application, those malls against which, allegations are made, are not even made party respondents. The order dated 14.12.2016 is passed when the owners of the buildings approached this Court, alleging that, in absence of interim order, the respondent authorities are not considering their applications for grant of NOC/licenses. 5. In this application, those malls against which, allegations are made, are not even made party respondents. The order dated 14.12.2016 is passed when the owners of the buildings approached this Court, alleging that, in absence of interim order, the respondent authorities are not considering their applications for grant of NOC/licenses. Without going into the merits of their claim, this Court, directed the opponents in Civil Application No. 10596 of 2016 to consider the applications of the applicants therein for grant of NOC/licenses, provided that the applicants satisfy all the requirements, as per the law. 6. On service of notice to learned Government Pleader, an affidavit-in-reply is also filed on behalf of opponent No. 1. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and also perused the affidavit-in-reply and further materials on record. 8. Though the applicant alleges violation of the directions in the order dated 14.12.2016, this application is filed without impleading the applicants in Civil Application (For Direction) No. 10596 of 2016 as party respondents. Though it is alleged that the authorities have violated the directions but, in effect, the order which is passed would have impact on the applicants in Civil Application No. 10596 of 2016. In any event, as this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the applicants in Civil Application No. 10596 of 2016, if any permissions/NOC/licenses are granted contrary to GDCR or Gujarat Cinema Rules, 2014, while it is open for the applicant to question the proceedings before the competent authority by availing alternative remedy available under the law, but at the same time, it cannot be said that there is a deliberate and willful violation of the directions issued by this Court attracting the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, this Misc. Civil Application is devoid of any merits. Granting liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate authority as per the rules, this application is dismissed.