IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3773 of 2009 PREM RANJAN PATEL, son of Sri N.K. Prasad, resident of 34, Navanit Housing Colony, Hanuman Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR .The Chief Secretary 2. Mr. Ajay Narayan Sharma, son of Sri Kumar Narayan Sharma, resident of Chaudhary Tola, P.S. Sultanganj, District-Patna. 3. Bihar Cricket Association (formerly registered under the Society Registration Act) through its Secretary Mr. Ajay Narayan Sharma. 4. Sri N. Srinivashan, son of not known to the petitioner at present Secretary Board of Control for Cricket in India, Cricket Center Wankhade Stadium, D. Road, Church Gate, Mumber-20. 5. Mr. Ratnakar Sethi, son of not known to the petitioner at present Administrative Officer of Board of Control for Cricket in India, Cricket Center Wankhade Stadium, D Road, Church Gate Mumbai-20. --- For the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava,Advocate Mr. Chandra Shekhar Verma,Advocate For Opp.Party No.2: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate For Opp. Party No.4: Mr. Jitendra Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate ----------- 3. 3.2.2010 Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner alleges wilful disobedience of the order dated 22.5.2009 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.6650 of 2009. By the said order this Court had stayed the impugned order dated 29.4.2009 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in Appeal Case No.57 of 2008 and the stay order was granted after noting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order had been passed by the Member, Board of Revenue - 2 - without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are carrying on their activities and the other opposite parties are assisting them in doing so despite the stay granted by this Court. This Court is unable to accept such contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, as the stay was only granted against the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue and there was no prohibition to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in carrying on their activities. In the above circumstances, there is no occasion for proceeding further with the contempt application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )