IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.714 of 2008 CHANDRIKA PRASAD SINGH, S/o Late Brij Nath Singh, resident of village Bithauli, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shri Ravikant, Secretary cum Commissioner, Co- operative Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretarait, Bailey Road, Patna 3. Shri Jai Mangal Singh, Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 4. Shri Panchanan Sharma, Chairman, Bihar Co- operative Federation Ltd., Budh Marg, Patna- 800001 5. Shri Bhogendra Nath Jha, Managing Director, Bihar Co-operative Federation Ltd., Budh Marg, Patna-800001 … Respondents/Opp.Party. ----------- 3. 31.3.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner complains non- compliance of the order of this Court dated 13.12.2004 in M.J.C.No. 3069/2001. In order to appreciate the such grievance it would be necessary first to take into account the alleged direction given by this Court whose non-compliance has led to filing of this M.J.C. application. “ The Chairman and the Managing Director of the Federation have filed their show cause separately in which it has been contended that during the pendency of the present application though five awards have been disposed of but only one is in 2 their favour which entitles them to an amount of Rs. 5.5 lacs and odd. The commitment has been made in court by both of them that if the revenue from any source is received with the Federation they would be discharging the dues of the petitioner. It is, accordingly, ordered. Let the same be done within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the revenue in the Federation from any source either generated by themselves or in view of an award or other adjudication or any other source. This Court taking the predicament of the respondents into consideration and the petitioner, as there is no revenue, is not in a position to pass any other order/ direction. Let the commitment as given by the respondents be recorded as an order of this Court. The show cause filed on behalf of the three respondents- opposite parties are accepted and they are discharged.” In the opinion of this Court the said order only was to the extent that the petitioner’s dues could be paid if there was 3 sufficient revenue in the Federation. There is no other direction in the said order of this Court and in fact the contempt proceeding despite not making payment even on earlier occasion was dropped. Counsel for the Federation has taken a plea that no such revenue could be generated from any source from which the payment could have been made to the petitioner. In this context he has relied on the resolution of the Board of Director of the Federation dated 7.7.2009 which reads as follows: ^^fu.kZ; QsMjs'ku ds lsokfuo`r dkfeZdksa ds cdk;s osru] miknku rFkk vodk'u osru ds leh{kksijkUr ik;k x;k fd o"kZ 1987 ls 2004 rd lsok fuo`r 53 dkfeZdksa ds mi;qZDr cdk;s dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku djuk vHkh 'ks"k gSA o"kZ 1987 ls o"kZ 1996 rd 28 lsok fuo`r dkfeZdksa dsoy ,d dkfeZd }kjk rFkk 1997 ls 2004 rd 25 lsok fuo`r dkfeZdksa esa 12 dkfeZdksa }kjk ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; esa cdk;k Hkqxrku gsrq ekeyk nk;j fd;k x;k gSA buesa pkj voekuuk okn Hkh py jgs gSA QsMjs'ku dh foRrh; fLFkfr dkQh n;uh; jgus ds dkj.k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds vkns'kkuqlkj miyC/k jkf'k ls ekeyk ntZX djus okyksa dks le; le; ij vkaf'kd Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk jgk gSA bl dkj.k Hkqxrku esa folaxfr gks jgh gS vkSj igys gksus okys lsok fuo`r dkfeZdksa dks Hkqxrku u gksdj cgqr ckn esa lsok fuo`r dkfeZdksa dks Hkqxrku fey tkrk gSA vr,o mi;ZqDr ifjizs{; esa bu fcUnqvksa ij fopkj djrs gq, izkd`frd U;k; dks /;ku esa j[kdj fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gS fd igys lsok fuo`r gq, dkfeZdksa dks jkf'k miyC/k gksus ij muds cdk;s osru ,oa lsokar ykHkksas dks lsok fuo`fr dh frfFk ds dze esa gh Hkqxrku layXu lwph ds vuqlkj fd;k tk;xkA g0@& vLi"V iz'kkld** 4 Counsel would also draw the attention of this Court that there are in all 54 persons, who are entitled for receiving payment from the Federation for accumulated total amount of Rs. 71,34,912.92 paise but on account of paucity of fund only 17 persons strictly in order of seniority have been paid. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any contempt to have been committed by the opposite parties. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Annexure 5, the letter of Federation dated 21.12.2000 suggesting certain means for generating of fund to the Registrar of the Co-operative Society cannot be taken into consideration for the two reasons, namely, this Court in contempt jurisdiction will not make a judicial review of possible sources of revenue to be generated by the Federation and secondly, such document was already in existence even on 13.12.2004 when the said order was passed. Thus, on taking into account the aforementioned facts especially the financial crunch this Court would not 5 find any merit in this application which must be and is hereby dismissed. The dismissal of this application, however, would not stand in the way of the petitioner to recover the said amount if any point of time the Federation would make payment of such retirement dues in the list of 54 persons from which 17 of them in seniority have already been paid and the petitioner stands at serial no.47. With the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/