IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.967 of 2011 Ranju Devi Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. 4/ 10/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that the appellate authority has passed final orders when the report of the S.D.O. affirmed by the District Programme Officer and District Magistrate, as directed, has been considered also. He however makes a grievance that the appellate authority was required to decide the appeal in accordance with the records as it stood and a fresh enquiry of the dominant populace could not have been ordered while determining the appeal. The Court had granted no such liberty. Learned counsel for the State submits that no fresh mapping of the dominant populace had been done, but after consideration of earlier enquiry and reports a fresh conclusion with regard to the dominant populace only had been arrived at. The direction was to decide the appeal. That has been complied with. The further direction was to consider certain other reports. That is acknowledged to have been done also. There were no directions for the 2 manner in which the appeal was to be disposed except taking into consideration the reports which has been done. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the fresh appellate order, including the question whether any fresh mapping has been done or the dominant populace had been ascertained on basis of old records only are matters which cannot be examined in the contempt jurisdiction. The application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)