IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No 765 of 2008 Ram Ayodhya Rai, son of late Deodutt Rai, resident of village – Saguna, P O & P S – Danapur, Patna – 801 503 - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 Shri Rajaynand Bardiar, Circle Officer, P S – Danapur, Patna – 800 012 - Contemnors *** For the petitioner : Mr K N Singh, Sr Advocate with Mr Rakesh Rajan, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Apurva Kumar, AC to SC 10 *** 3 17.05.2011 Two writ petitions were filed in this Court being CWJCs No 7056 and 5816 of 2006. They were disposed of by a common order dated 13.03.2007 by this Court directing the Anchal Adhikari, Danapur to consider the matter first deciding the issue of maintainability and then deciding the dispute after noticing all parties and hearing them. It appears the matter was taken back in Miscellaneous Case No 25 of 2005-2006 before the Anchal Adhikari, Danapur. Order dated 10.07.2007 indicates that the Anchal Adhikari adjourned the proceedings sine die in view of some MJC application filed before this Court as informed by him by GP 2 on phone but what surprises this Court is that immediately, after two weeks on 24.07.2007, he passes final orders in the case noting that the parties have been heard, the site had been inspected and he even cites case laws, as cited by the parties. The original records were called for and from perusal thereof, it is evident that there is more than what meets the eyes. Something happened in between the two dates which persuaded the Circle Officer to pass an order. From the ordersheet and accompanying 2 papers, it is evident that no body was heard nor was there any site inspection. Something happened beyond the records and the final order was passed. In this view of the matter, it would be advisable for the present Circle Officer to recall this order and after noticing all the concerned parties, hear the parties first on the preliminary issue of maintainability of the proceedings, decide it and then proceed. If the proceedings are found maintainable, to decide the matter afresh as the manner in which he has decided the matter earlier is not in consonance with the order of this Court but in view of what I have noted above, I do not propose to initiate any proceeding against him for the present. This application, with the aforesaid observation and direction, stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)