IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2106 of 2011 ----------- 1. Jai Kumar @ Jay Kumar, s/o Sri Kamlesh Kumar Gupta, resident of Mohalla Shanti Bhawan, Babu Tola Lane, Govind Mitra Lane, Behind Janta Hotel, District Patna. 2. Sri Kamlesh Kumar Gupta, S/o Lakhi Narain Gupta, resident of Mohalla Shanti Bhawan, Babu Tola Lane, Govind Mitra Lane, Behind Janta Hotel, District Patna. 3. Smt. Shanti Devi, W/o Sri Kamlesh Kumar Gupta, Shanti Bhavan, Babu Tola Lane, Govind Mitra Lane, Behind Janta Hotel, Post Office Bankipur, P.S. Pirbohar, District Patna. …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Md. Makshud Alam, the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Certificate Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna. 3. Mr. H.K.Sharkar, the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Boring Canal Road Branch, Patna. …… Opposite parties. -------- 08/ 14.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for willfully violating and deliberately disobeying the specific order of this court dated 19.01.2011 passed in CWJC No.399 of 2011 and also for a direction to the opposite parties to comply the said order in its true spirit and tenor, besides awarding punishment to the opposite parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by the aforesaid order dated 19.01.2011, the authorities concerned were directed to decide the application of the petitioners in which the two points were to be specifically considered and decided. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that in view of the aforesaid - 2 - order of this court they filed a detailed application on 29.1.2011 (Annexure-2), but the authority concerned passed its order dated 16.04.2011 (Annexure-A) rejecting the claim of the petitioners without considering the aforesaid points raised by them as directed by this court which were with respect to adjustment of loan as per OTS scheme of the Bank and the entitlement of the petitioners to the benefits having already given to other such loanees. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the certificate case in which action is sought to be taken against the petitioners is a time barred case as it was initiated in the year 2007 although cause of action had arisen in 2004 and the petitioners have been suffering for seven years due to the illegalities committed by the respondents. 5. From a bare perusal of the order of the authorities concerned it transpires that although it is not a happily worded and happily framed order, but effort has been made to consider the aforesaid two points which may be good, bad or indifferent, but the fact remains that the authorities had complied the order of this court. So far the legality or otherwise of the said order is concerned, the petitioners are always entitled to challenge the same before an appropriate authority at the relevant time. 6. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)