IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CLCON NO. 91 OF 2010 Parmanand Kandpal ……Petitioner. Versus Jagmohan Lal ….Respondent. Present : Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Date of Decision : 30.9.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 258 of 2004 has not been complied with. 3. An order was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 30.4.2009 in favour of the petitioner, whereby directions were given to the respondent / Managing Director, Uttarakhand Power Corporation to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of two months. The petitioner now states that although the representation has been decided, but it has been wrongly decided as it has been decided stating that the case of the petitioner is different from those who have been given such appointments. 4. The only direction of this Court was to the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner. This has been done. Since the directions of this Court have been complied with, the petitioner has no remedy to move a contempt petition, though the petitioner may still have a remedy to challenge the order dated 27.6.2009 before this Court agitating his grievance, but that is another matter. 5. The instant contempt petition is entirely misconceived and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 6. For the reasons stated above, no order needs to be passed on the objections raised by the Registry that the contempt petition is time barred. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 30.9.2010 Rathour