IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2292 of 2010 Baldeo Prasad Gupta, S/o Late Shambhu Prasad Gupta, R/o Village- Karmatar, P.S. & District-Jamtara(Jharkhand), formerly working in a Govt. of India undertaking Bank-Bank of India as a J.M. Grade-I Officer & Depositor of Bank of India. … Petitioner in person. Versus Bank Of India through its: 1. The Chairman Cum Managing Director 2. The Executive Director Cum Review Authority, 3. The General Manager (Personnel) Cum Appellate Authority All C/o Bank of India/Head Office STAR HOUSE, C-5, G-Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. 4. The Zonal Manager cum-Disciplinary Authority, C/o Bank of India, Zonal Office, Chankya Palace, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna-800001. 5. The Branch Manager, Dehri-On-Sone, Giridih, Sindri Branches, C/o Bank of India, Dehri-On-Sone Branch, P.O.-Dehri-On-Sone, District-Rohtas(Bihar). 6. The I.O. Mehra, the Enquiry Officer, C/o Bank Bank of India Zonal Office, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna-800001. 7. The State of Bihar. ……. Opposite Parties. For the petitioner : Mr. Baldeo Prasad Gupta (In person). For the Bank of India : Mr. Shivaji Pandey, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 7. 19.01.2011 1. Heard the petitioner in person and Mr. Sivaji Pandey, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ranjeet Sinha, Advocate for the Opposite Parties-Bank. 2. This petition has been filed for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for disobedience/violation of order dated 27.01.2009 (Annexure-1) by which Civil Review No. 257 of 2008 was dismissed as follows:- “ In view of the fact that the said order of this court sought to be reviewed has been affirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the orders passed in L.P.A. No. 455 of 2 2001 taking serious note of the conduct of the petitioner in agitating the same matter again and again which had been finally concluded by the court of law resulting in gross abuse of the process of the court, there is no occasion for reviewing the said order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7062 of 1994, specially because this court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record, nor there is any fresh material to take a different view, nor does this court find any other reason to review the said order. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed”. 3. Although, as per the final conclusion no direction was given to the authorities and as such no contempt or violation can be legally assumed to have arisen, but learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon paragraphs 3 and 5 of the said order in which references were made with respect to CWJC No. 132 of 1999, Civil Review No. 29 of 2000, MJC No. 1814 of 2000, MJC No. 804 of 2001 as well as the appeal pending before the respondents, which was directed to be disposed of by this court vide order dated 23.02.1999 passed in CWJC No. 132 of 1999. 4. Earlier the petitioner had filed CWJC No. 7062 of 1994 against the dismissal of his service as an officer of the respondent bank on 11.12.1993, but the said writ case was dismissed on merits by a Bench of this court vide order dated 28.07.1995 against which he filed L.P.A. No. 1563 of 1995 which was also dismissed on 22.09.1995, whereafter petitioner approached the Supreme Court but there also he lost. 5. Again a second writ case CWJC No. 132 of 1999 3 was filed by the petitioner, but that was also dismissed by a Bench of this court vide order dated 23.02.1999 as it was reiteration of the same matter which was in issue in the earlier writ case. However, an observation was given in the said order that the appeal, which was pending before the respondents as claimed by the petitioner, be disposed of. 6. Thereafter M.J.C. 1084 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner for modification of the said order dated 23.02.1999 passed in CWJC No. 132 of 1999, but the respondents claimed that no such appeal was pending with the Respondent-Bank and hence there was no question of disposal of such an appeal. In these circumstances, this court rejected the said petition holding that there was no need of modification of the order passed in the writ case and if no appeal was pending when the order was passed, there is no question of its disposal. 7. Another petition bearing M.J.C. No. 1395 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner, this time for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for alleged violation of order dated 23.02.1999 passed in CWJC No. 132 of 1999, but the said petition was also dismissed vide order dated 12.03.1999, against which the petitioner filed L.P.A. No. 1066 of 1999 which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court as not maintainable. 8. Thereafter Civil Review No. 29 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner for review of order dated 23.02.1999 passed in 4 C.W.J.C. No. 132 of 1999 stating that the appeal filed by him on 13.10.1998 was not being disposed of by the authorities because it had not been numbered and hence a Bench of this court disposed of the said civil review petition on 08.03.2000 with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the said appeal filed by the petitioner if it was pending. 9. However for modification of the aforesaid order dated 08.03.2000 passed in Civil Review No. 29 of 2000 a petition bearing M.J.C. No. 1292 of 2000 was filed by the authority of the respondent bank in which it was clearly stated that no appeal was pending and as such the said order be modified. However, the said modification petition was dismissed on 17.05.2000, obviously because any appeal could be decided only when it was in existence. 10. Not being satisfied the petitioner again filed a petition for contempt being M.J.C. No. 804 of 2001 which was dismissed on 09.01.2004. In the mean time M.J.C. No. 1814 of 2000 had also been filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the respondents for non- compliance of order dated 08.03.2000 passed in Civil Review No. 29 of 2000. The said M.J.C. No. 1814 of 2000 was dismissed by a Bench of this Court on 28.11.2007 observing that repeated filing of cases before this court for the same relief cannot be appreciated. 11. A third writ petition bearing CWJC No. 4087 of 5 2001 was filed by the petitioner, but the said writ petition was dismissed on 20.04.2001 by a Bench of this court after observing that the court did not appreciate the filing of successive writ petitions. Against the said order the petitioner filed LPA No. 455 of 2001 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 16.05.2001 taking serious note of the conduct of the petitioner-appellant in agitating same matter again and again which had been finally concluded by this court, holding that it amounted to gross abuse of the process of the court. 12. It transpires that the petitioner did not pay any heed to the repeated orders of various Benches of this Court including a Division Bench and after thirteen years filed Civil Review No. 257 of 2008 for review of order dated 28.07.1995 passed in his first writ case, namely C.W.J.C. No. 7062 of 1994, but the said review petition was dismissed by this court on 27.01.2009 as has been mentioned in paragraph-2 above. In view of the nature of the aforesaid order and the contents thereof, it is quite apparent that neither any direction had been given nor any question of violation or disobedience of any order is involved, which could be legally raised in this case bearing M.J.C. No. 2292 of 2010. 13. Furthermore, letter dated 13.10.1998 sent by the petitioner to the bank, which the petitioner is harping upon as appeal, had already been rejected by the authority of the Bank as not maintainable vide order passed as far back as on 24.05.2000, 6 a copy of which has been produced in this court by the petitioner himself. From perusal of the said order dated 24.05.2000 it is quite apparent that the authority concerned had considered the entire matter in detail as well as the various orders passed in that regard and thus it appears to be legal and proper and did not require any further deliberations. 14. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner. The act of the petitioner by continuously filing frivolous petitions before this court in one shape or the other is highly deprecated and normally in such matter heavy cost should have been levied on the petitioner, but considering the fact that the petitioner is appearing in person no order for cost is being passed. 15. Accordingly, this M.J.C. petition is dismissed. Sujit (S.N.Hussain, J.)