IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2989 of 2010 LAMBODAR CHUDHARY . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. . ----------- 2. 30.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Opposite Parties. The writ petition was disposed on 17.2.2010 noticing that the petitioner had already invoked the jurisdiction of the Director General of Police by filing a memorial. This Court only observed that it is expected that all issues of facts and law raised in the memorial shall be considered appropriately and shall find due reflection and consideration with reasons in the order to facilitate judicial review, should the need arise. The petitioner is stated to have served a copy of the Court’s order on 11.3.2010. When nothing transpired within the time fixed of two months he filed the present contempt application on 23.7.2010. The opposite parties have then passed the impugned order on 11.8.2010 rejecting the memorial. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh order suffers from error apparent on the face of the record when like the enquiry officer it does not arrive at any finding whether the defence of the petitioner based on evidence furnished by him with 2 regard to illness etc. was acceptable or unacceptable along with reasons for the conclusion but gives a short shrift to the whole issue by holding that he did not produce any concrete evidence. Counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that the memorial having been disposed, the order of the writ Court stands complied. If the petitioner is aggrieved he may challenge the fresh order in the writ petition. Prima facie, the Court finds justification in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. A copy of the memorial has been annexed to the contempt application. The pleadings at Paragraphs 8, 16 and 25 of the memorial are specific with regard to his defence and the evidence furnished for his absence due to illness. It does not find any consideration in the memorial. The petitioner had specifically raised the issue that the enquiry officer was required to arrive at a determination of acceptance or un-acceptance of the defence on preponderance of probability and could not have left his decision in the void. Quite obviously, the opposite party no. 2, put to the anxiety of passing an order rather than facing the wrath of the Court in the contempt proceeding, till the initiation of the contempt proceeding did not appear to be in a hurry. A person 3 acting in haste commits errors. That is where the opposite party has faulted. The Court is handicapped in examining the order dated 11.8.2010 in the contempt jurisdiction even though it is prima facie satisfied of the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner, limited by the powers of the contempt Court. The petitioner filed a writ petition. It was followed by a contempt. Perhaps it may now be followed by another writ petition. The answerability shall lie with whom? The Court leaves it open. The proceeding stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)