IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.911 of 2010 SATYA NARAYAN PANDEY S/O LATE UPENDRA NARAYAN PANDEY R/O VILL.- PIROJGADH, TOLA- RAMNAGAR, P.S.- GHOGHARDIHA, DISTT.- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SRIDHAR CHERIBELLU, THE COLLECTOR PURNEA 3. FARUQUE AHMAD, THE COLLECTOR KISHANGANJ 4. VIJAY KUMAR DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, PURNEA 5. RAM KUMAR PODDAR, THE CIRCLE OFFICER POTHIA, DISTT.- KISHANGANJ ----------- 03. 24.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. A show cause has been filed stating therein to the effect that the order has been complied with even though petitioner did not file the representation. Upon verifying the records, the necessary orders on account of G.P.F. has been sanctioned Vide Annexure – C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount which has been sanctioned on account of G.P.F. as per Annexure – C is not correct. Since the order has been complied with, this contempt application need not proceed further and the same is accordingly, disposed of. However, petitioner will be at liberty to point out the discrepancy if any in the sanctioned amount. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)