ORDER : 1. This contempt petition is filed for the alleged breach of the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 107952 of 2016 in the case of Dundappa and another Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi. The said short interim order is quoted below for ready reference:- “Statement of objections filed by the respondent is taken on record. Learned AGA submits that the petitioners by suppressing the material facts has obtained NA conversion from the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi and therefore it was cancelled. Hence, interim order prayed by the petitioners may not be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent by virtue of cancellation of NA, order is insisting upon department of Mines and Geology, Karnataka Pollution Control Board and other departments to cancel the permission granted by them in favour of the petitioners. Admittedly, license granted by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the petitioners is cancelled, which has been challenged in this petition. The petitioners are prepared to undertake that they would not carry quarry work till further order of this Court. Their undertaking is taken on record. If that is so, it is proper to direct the respondent not to precipitate the matter until further orders. List this matter on 14-11-2016.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted in the present contempt petition that the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, has precipitated the matter adverse for the petitioner further by insisting upon the Department of Mines and Geology, Karnataka Pollution Control Board and other departments to cancel the permission granted by them in favour of the petitioner. He submitted that the mutation entries were effected in the land records changing the name of the present petitioner, which amounts to such precipitation and therefore, respondent committed a contempt of the order of this court. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that no such contempt appears to be made out in the present case. No adverse order passed by any other departments, other than Deputy Commissioner has been placed on record, which might indicate that the same has been passed at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner contrary to the undertaking even before the learned Single Judge, directing the respondent not to precipitate the matter until further orders. No adverse order passed by any other departments, other than Deputy Commissioner has been placed on record, which might indicate that the same has been passed at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner contrary to the undertaking even before the learned Single Judge, directing the respondent not to precipitate the matter until further orders. Even if any such orders were given to the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate legal remedy, against either in the pending writ petition itself or by filing writ petition afresh, if so advised. 4. We do not find any such deliberate disobedience of the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge in the present case and therefore, we are not inclined to proceed further with this contempt petition and we dismiss the same accordingly.