JUDGMENT : Ajai Lamba, J. Saraighat Photo Types Pvt. Ltd., prays for issuing notice to the respondents under Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for intentionally violating and disobeying order dated 12.06.2019 rendered in Writ Appeal No.146/2019 titled 'Saraighat Photo Types Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Assam and others'. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the Writ Court and the Appellate Court in intra-court-appeal directed maintenance of transparency in allocation of work and make payment to the petitioner for the works already executed by the petitioner, needful has not been done. Under the circumstances, notice be issued to the respondents. 3. Vide the order dated 3.4.2019, the writ petition W.P.(C) No.1959 of 2019 was disposed of with the following observation (relevant portion : "It is stated that as per expression of interest, it was made clear that submission of any such expression of interest would confer no right to get printing work/works. It is further stated that apart from completion of printing of free textbooks from Class-I to Class-X, printing of free textbooks for Class-XII is going on. In so far printing of free textbooks for Class-XI is concerned, it would be taken up shortly. All the empanelled presses would be considered for allotment of works as per the schedule of printing commensurate with the volume of work and response. From the materials on record, it is seen that on previous occasions petitioner was earlier awarded printing works for printing of free textbooks for earlier academic sessions. Being empanelled at Serial No.1, naturally a legitimate expectation is generated in the petitioner that it would be awarded some printing works. Denial of such work to the petitioner merely on the ground that empanelment at Serial No.1 confers no right to get the printing work is not justified. Accordingly, respondents are directed to consider allocating printing of free textbooks for Class-XI or any other equivalent work to the petitioner. This disposes of the writ petition." 4. As noted above, the petitioner carried an intra-court appeal. The intra-court appeal was disposed of in the following terms (relevant portion) : 8. The writ petition was filed in the month of March, 2019 and it appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the work orders were issued in the month of September, 2018 onwards. As noted above, the petitioner carried an intra-court appeal. The intra-court appeal was disposed of in the following terms (relevant portion) : 8. The writ petition was filed in the month of March, 2019 and it appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the work orders were issued in the month of September, 2018 onwards. May be the appellant waited expecting that it will also be allocated some works, but that was not to be. However, one aspect which the Court cannot be oblivious of, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that all printing works for the Session 2019-2020 had been allocated and that printing is normally required to be done within a period of 45 days from the date of issue of the work order. 9. In the backdrop of the above factual scenario, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with the order of the learned Single Judge. However, as there was no consideration in respect of payment for the works executed by the appellant, we direct the respondent authorities to verify the bills of the appellant and, if any amount is found due and payable, the same shall be paid within a period of three months. We would also like to observe that the respondents will bear in mind the avowed principles of transparency and openness which are required to be followed in the matter of distribution of State largesse. 10. With the above observations and directions, the writ appeal stands disposed of. 5. A perusal of the portion of orders rendered by the Writ Court and the Writ Appellate Court would indicate that neither any specific direction was issued to the respondent to allocate work to the petitioner nor a direction as regards payment of a specific amount in regard to execution of a particular work by the petitioner. So far as the maintaining transparency is concerned, there is no material available on the record of this Court to indicate that in that regard contempt has been committed. 6. Be that as it may, we find that the plea made in the petition does not satisfy us to issue notice under the Act of 1971. 7. The petition is dismissed. 8. 6. Be that as it may, we find that the plea made in the petition does not satisfy us to issue notice under the Act of 1971. 7. The petition is dismissed. 8. We may add that in case the petitioner has not been paid for the works already executed by them, they may avail appropriate remedy provided in law, before appropriate forum, if so advised.