JUDGMENT : Non compliance with the order dated 20-11-2015 passed in SBCWP No.6624/2009 has been alleged in this contempt petition. The said petition was disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 6-11-2015 in DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No.663/2015, State of Rajasthan Vs. The Managing Committee Shri Bhagwan Das Todi College. Mr. Krishna Verma, appearing for the petitioners submitted that following the order dated 20-11-2015, the petitioners vide letter dated 20-2-2016 submitted all relevant documents and requested to release of sanctioned grant-in-aid on account of outstanding salary of employees working on sanctioned posts as per 5th pay commission and 6th pay commission, their selection grade at the end of 9-18-27 years of service and PL encashment as well as outstanding grant-in-aid all aggregating to an amount of Rs.1,70,33,340/- upto the financial year 2011-12. Some enquiries thereon were made by the respondents, which were answered and Due drawn statement was submitted on 20-5-2016. Mr. Krishna Verma submitted that despite the due drawn statement and other requisites submitted the respondents have failed to comply with the directions of this court in the case of Bhagwan Das Todi (supra) based on which the petitioners' writ petition was disposed of on 20-11-2015. That tantamount to contempt of court, Mr. Krishna Verma submitted and while the respondents be required to purge. And in the alternative they be punished. Reply to contempt petition has been filed. Mr. S.K. Gupta AAG submitted that on verification of the due drawn statement submitted following the court's order dated 20-11-2015, an amount Rs.1,43,91,733/- as found payable in the aggregate for and on all heads has been paid to the petitioners on or about 1-1-2018. In this view of the matter no contempt of the order dated 20-11-2015 as alleged is made out and the contempt petition is being used “interrorem” to extract amounts of grant-in-aid not due/ outstanding. Mr. S.K. Gupta further submitted that in any event the issue in this contempt petition is effectively an accounting dispute, for whatever its worth, which cannot be addressed in the jurisdiction the courts currently exercises, and the petitioner if aggrieved of short payment should resort to a suit for rendition of accounts. Mr. Krishna Verma, counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that the payment made by respondents is not full compliance with the order dated 20-11-2015. Heard. Considered. Mr. Krishna Verma, counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that the payment made by respondents is not full compliance with the order dated 20-11-2015. Heard. Considered. In compliance with the order dated 20-11-2015 in SBCWP No.6624/2009 due drawn statements and other information requisitioned by the respondents were submitted by the petitioners. On consideration of the matter an amount of Rs.1,43,91,733/- has been paid to the petitioner, with which the petitioner states dissatisfaction and claims more amounts towards grant-in-aid due under the court's order. In the facts of the instant case where a sum of Rs.1,43,91,733/- has been paid as grant-in-aid to the petitioner non compliance with the order dated 20-11-2015 passed by this court cannot be made out as the court had not directed payment of any specific amount. It only detailed the time line and the adherence to obtaining bye-laws therefor. That has been done in the wisdom and discretion of the respondents. What appears is that an accounting dispute with regard to due grant-in-aid to which the petitioners claim to be entitled obtains. The exercise of determining the due sanctioned grant-in-aid inter alia is complex one entailing determining, on evidence the income of the petitioner institution juxtaposed the approved expenditure in terms of the obtaining statutory provisions. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken in contempt jurisdiction. The petitioner cannot be allowed resort to the contempt jurisdiction of this court in terrorem. The appropriate remedy for them is to approach the civil court in a suit for rendition of accounts. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the contempt petition as it is manifestly misdirected. It is accordingly dismissed. Notices are discharged.