IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2133 of 2009 SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK, A RETIRED JUDGE OF HON’BLE PATNA HIGH COURT, SON OF LATE BADRI NATH PATHAK, RESIDENT OF KARMA ROAD, P.S. AND DISTRICT- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) Versus 1. SRI AMIT KUMAR, EX. S.S.P., PATNA AT PRESENT POSTED AS D.I.G. MUNGER 2. SMT. R. MALLAV VIZHI, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 3. SRI JITENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 4. THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 8 29.09.2010 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned counsels for the parties. After hearing the concerned counsel for parties and on perusal of their respective pleadings it is not in dispute that the security to the petitioner is provided at Aurangabad however there is some controversy as to whether the security was provided during the period of his stay at Patna or not on being informed by him. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that there is no specific programme sent by the petitioner to the concerned authorities about his stay at Patna and as such the allegation of violating or disregarding the order dated 10.10.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7252 of 2004 is not correct. Needless to go further detail in the - 2 - matter, the learned counsel for the State submits that in case specific programme of the petitioner is sent in some advance to the concerned authority the security as per order shall be provided to him during his stay at Patna. In view of the above, the contempt application need not proceed further and the same accordingly stands disposed of. ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.) ( Gopal Prasad, J.)