IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11766 of 2010 1. MAHARANI DURGESHWARI SAHI WIFE OF LATE MAHARAJ BAHADUR GOPESHWER PRASAD SAHI. 2. MAHARAJ BAHADUR MRIGENDRA PRATAP SAHI S/O LATE MAHARAJ BAHADUR GOPESHWAR PD. SAHI. Both are residents of Hathwa House, South of Gandhi Maidan, P.S. Gandhi Maidan in the Town-District-Patna. ………….Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR GOPALGANJ. 3. THE ADM, GOPALGANJ. 4. THE SDO, HATHWA IN THE DISTRICT OF GOPALGANJ. ………….Respondents ----------- 05 10.03.2011 Petitioners are taking exceptions to the notice (Annexure-1) which has been published by the respondent- Collector, inviting objections from the parties concerned including those who had any interest in the land covered by the ceiling proceeding(s) initiated against the landholder(s). This was issued pursuant to order of this court (Annexure-2), whereby the writ petition preferred by the landholders was disposed of and the authorities were directed to proceed in accordance with the observations/directions issued by the Board of Revenue which was impugned in C.W.J.C. No. 3217 of 1992 (Annexure-2). Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there was absolutely no occasion for inviting objection from the people at large as would appear from the last paragraph of the notice (Annexure-1). It is next submitted that the notice was published on 08.07.2010 and the parties concerned were required to file their responses/applications/objections on 16.07.2010. However, it is 2 not in dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid notice, the petitioners/landholders appeared and the matter is pending consideration. It is submitted that the notice is the product of personal grudge and is designed to undermine in the estimation of people at large the prestige and respectability the family of the landholders command. It is contended that whole proceeding is being videographed under orders of respondent no. 2 which is not a normal procedure and the same should be stopped. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that diverse issues are now to be considered in the light of order of remand passed by the learned Board of Revenue which found affirmation in the order of this court as contained in Annexure-2 and, as such, it was deemed apposite and/or expedient to publish the notice so that all concerned are informed about the proceeding which is/was to be taken up pursuant to order of remand passed by the Board of Revenue and affirmed by this court (Annexure-2). Mr. Ajay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that allegation of bias has been levelled against the Collector under whose order the impugned notice has been published. The said officer has now been transferred from the said district. It is, thus, submitted that the said grievance now does not survive. Videography of a judicial or quasi judicial proceeding is not the normal course. This court finds substance in the submission of the petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of 3 the case, the procedure adopted by the authorities by videographing the proceeding is neither necessary nor in accordance with law. Accordingly, said part of the order is quashed. The authorities are directed not to proceed with the videography of the pending proceeding any more. As about the grievance of the petitioners that a very short time was granted under the impugned notice for filing objections/representations/appearances in pursuance of the aforesaid notice, the same, in my view, does not survive, since the petitioners have already appeared in the proceeding which is pending consideration. This court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned notice (Annexure-1). The application is disposed of with aforesaid direction(s). Safik ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)