IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1212 of 2009 VIJAYA KUMARI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 4. 6.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The opposite parties did not file any counter affidavit in the writ petition. This Court therefore proceeded to dispose off the application with directions in light of what the petitioner had stated. What should have been filed by the opposite parties in the writ petition has finally come in the contempt proceedings and that too in their fourth show cause. The Court is thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the opposite parties seem to be treating proceedings before the Court. The attitude appears to be casual. The Court hopes and expects that the opposite parties shall realize the solemnity of Court proceeding and shall act in expeditious aid for dispensation of justice. Had they done so, at least the present proceedings would not have multiplied in contempt and matters may have achieved finality in the writ petition itself. From the order dated 15.9.2010 in the writ proceedings, it is apparent that matters were being considered in light of a circular dated 29.5.1968 assuming that it held the field when the advertisement in question 2 dated 13.8.2008 was issued. In that background, this Court had observed that the notification dated 21.7.1989 was limited to the Session 1989-91 only. Annexure-C to the fourth show cause is an order dated 9.11.2009 passed after consideration of the case of the petitioner as directed in the writ petition. From a reading of the order dated 9.11.2009, this Court is satisfied that the very basis of the order of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 17286 of 2008 no more survives. The fresh order refers to a fresh circular dated 19.6.2008 issued prior to the advertisement dated 13.8.2008 necessitated by reason of coming into force of the NCTE Act. Counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade the Court that the circular dated 19.6.2008 did not specifically repeal or recall the earlier circular dated 29.5.1968 and at least contained no clause that the reservation for discipline of Sanskrit stood abrogated. This Court is satisfied that these are issues which cannot be examined in a contempt jurisdiction. In the entirety of the matter, this Court is satisfied that no ground survives for further adjudication of the issue in contempt jurisdiction. The proceedings stand disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)