IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1997 of 2008 BALBHADRA NARAIN RAI Versus MIHIR KUMAR SINGH & ORS ----------- 7 16.12.2009 Heard. By order dated 28.10.2009, Chief Executive Officer of Patna Municipal Corporation was directed to be personally present in Court on the next date, as for three consecutive dates no one has appeared in the Court on his behalf. An I.A.No.6920 of 2009 was filed on 5.11.2009 for modification of the said order disclosing the reasons for non-appearance of the learned counsel on the previous dates. It is also said in the I.A.that the order of this Court has been complied with. I.A.No.6920/2009 is, therefore, allowed. Appearance of Chief Executive Officer of Patna Municipal Corporation is dispensed with. Petitioner has filed this contempt application alleging non-compliance of the order dated 20.12.2006 passed in writ application, namely, C.W.J.C.No.9705/2005. By the said order, the writ application of the petitioner was disposed of and he was given liberty to file a fresh representation before the authorities concerned within one month and the respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders within three months thereafter. Petitioner filed his representation 2 within one month, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to this application, which was received in the office of Opposite parties on 19.1.2007. No order having been passed within the time fixed by this Court, the petitioner filed this contempt application on 6.8.2008. On several dates, there was no assistance on behalf of the opposite parties. Therefore, by order dated 28.10.2009, the Chief Executive Officer of Patna Municipal Corporation was directed to be personally present in Court on the next date. After passing of the said order, a show- cause has been filed on behalf of Opposite party No.1 on 3.11.2009. Alongwith the show-cause an order passed by the Municipal Commissioner on 2.11.2009 rejecting the representation of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure- A. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the findings of the Municipal Commissioner for rejecting his representation. However, the merits of the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner can not be gone into in the contempt application. Therefore, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge that order of the Municipal Commissioner before an appropriate forum in accordance with law. But this much is apparent that inspite of the receipt of notice of filing the contempt application, no show-cause was filed in the Court in time and ,admittedly, the representation of the petitioner was not considered and orders were not passed within the time 3 fixed by this Court. It was only after order for personal appearance of the Chief Executive Officer of Patna Municipal Corporation was passed, a show-cause was filed and order disposing of the representation of the petitioner was passed. Apparently, due to latches and indifference shown by the Municipal Commissioner towards orders of this Court, the petitioner had to file this contempt application and had to pursue the same since last one year. Therefore, the show-cause of the Municipal Corporation is accepted with the condition that the Municipal Commissioner shall pay Rupees ten thousand to the petitioner from his own salary within one month from today. The Municipal Commissioner will be at liberty to realise this amount from the salary of the concerned employees if it is found the order of this Court was not brought to his notice due to laches on the part of any of them for compliance of the order of this Court dated 20.12.2006 passed in CWJC No.9705/2005 within the time. With the aforesaid directions/observations, this contempt application is disposed of. SKBOSE (J.N.Singh)