IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.514 of 2009 SATYANARAIN LAL DAS AGED 64 YEARS SON OF LATE CHUNNI LAL DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MIRDAUL, P.S.- NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA ….. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER- CUM-SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. SRI A.K. SINHA NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, COMMISSIONER- CUM- SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. SRI ANUPAM KUMAR NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECTOR, PROVIDENT FUND DIRECTORATE, PANT BHAWAN, PATNA 4. SRI K.N. LAL NAME OF THE FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CHIEF ENGINEER, MECHANICAL, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT BARRACK, PATNA. 5. SRI C.P. SINGH NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MECHANICAL CIRCLE, BIRPUR, DISTRICT, SUPAUL. 6. SRI MURLIDHAR SINGH NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MECHANICAL DIVISION, BIRPUR, DISTRICT, SUPAUL. 7. SRI SANJAY BISHWAS NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, SAHARSA. ….. OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 02 26.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking initiation of proceeding under the contempt of Court Act against the opposite parties for having deliberately and willfully violated the order of this Court dated 5.10.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4881 2 of 2005. The writ application filed by the petitioner was disposed of in the following manner:- “A counter affidavit has been filed and placed on record. Learned counsel for the State, with reference to the statement made in paragraph no.4 of the counter affidavit, submits that the matter was re- examined by the D.P.F.O. and finally the remaining amount payable under the G.P.F. has been authorized to the petitioner with interest up to April, 2003 vide order dated 14.7.2005. The respondents have also enclosed the authority slip in respect of the said statements as also the calculation chart. In that view of the matter, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner appears to have been redressed. He, however, seeks liberty to approach the concerned respondent D.P.F.O. if the computation of interest has not been properly done. The petitioner is given a liberty to approach the concerned D.P.F.O. if the computation has not been properly made, within four weeks from today.” Learned counsel submits that although he has filed a representation, but no action has been taken by the opposite parties. Looking to the nature of the order by which the writ application was disposed of, this Court is not satisfied that a case for willful violation/ breach of the order has been made out by 3 the opposite parties. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to proceed with the present application seeking action under the contempt of Court Act. However, the ends of justice shall be satisfied if the present application is disposed of with an observation that the petitioner shall file a fresh application before the District Provident Fund Officer, Saharsa along with the documents relied upon by the petitioner. The same shall be considered by the said authority within six weeks from the date of filing of said representation. The application is disposed of. P.K. ( K.K. Mandal, J.)