JUDGMENT : This Court by Ext.P2 judgment dated 16.12.2019 disposed of the writ petition as follows: “16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the proposition of law discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that, splitting up the 8 years period prescribed under Rule 4 of the Revised Eligibility Rules of the Association of Indian Universities has no nexus sought to be achieved, and the classification cannot stand the twin test of reasonableness discussed above, and is therefore, unconstitutional. Accordingly, I strike down the said classification made, and consequently, there will be a direction to the Universities to permit the students to participate for a period of 8 years between the age of 17 and 25 years, as is prescribed under Rule 4 of the Rules discussed above. This writ petitions are allowed accordingly.” 2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition, seeking for similar reliefs as granted in Ext.P2 judgment, on the same cause of action. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah [ (2007) 7 SCC 689 ), has held that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be complied/implemented by the respondents. If the order is not complied with by the party, the aggrieved party's remedy is to institute contempt of court proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, and not to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. 4. In the light of authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not feel it necessary to entertain this writ petition for the purpose of reiterating the very same direction passed in Ext.P2 judgment. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to move this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, against persons who have not complied with the directions contained in Ext.P2 judgment.