IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3012 of 2008 SHISHIR KUMAR MUKHARJEE Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04 28.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no.3. Show cause has also been filed on behalf of opposite party no.3. By order dated 16.1.2008 in C.W.J.C. No. 2805 of 2007 the representation of the petitioner with regard to his claim for arrears of salary was required to be considered and disposed by respondent no.3, in light of certain recommendations within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, with liberty to pass a reasoned order if it was to the prejudice to the petitioner. This contempt application was then filed on 7.11.2008 making statement to the effect and enclosing the representation dated 28.2.2008 filed before respondent no.3. When the representation was still not disposed, recourse has been taken to the present proceedings. Two copies of the contempt applications were served in the office of the Advocate General on 7.11.2008. The contempt application was taken up for the first time on 13.5.2010. Till that date no show cause had been filed 2 despite availability of the second copy of the contempt application with the authorities. Time was granted for filing of show cause. The matter was then taken up more than two months later on 21.7.2010, when counsel for the State of Bihar submitted that he have received no instruction. This Court then required the personal presence of opposite party no.3, both for non-compliance of the order as also hindering the course of justice by not filing a show cause. A show cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.3. It states that the claim of the petitioner has been found to be justified to the extent of Rs. 1,09,666/- and sanction order for payment has been issued on 22.7.2010, sent to the Superintendent Physical Education, Darbhanga on 23.7.2010 with a direction to pay the petitioner. Paragraph-8 states that the amount has since been deposited in the petitioner’s Account. Learned counsel for opposite party no.3 submits that now that the order of the Court had been complied with, the proceedings may be dropped. Undoubtedly, the question of initiating any proceedings in the contempt jurisdiction simply does not arise now. However, it is more than apparent from the show cause that opposite party no.3 was galvanized into action for compliance only after the order dated 3 21.7.2010 of this court directing his personal appearance. There is not a whisper of suggestion in the show cause, as to why from 7.11.2008 no show cause had been filed much less compliance was not being done. The only submission being made is that the opposite party no.3 had joined the post in question in February, 2009 only. On his own showing, he is also answerable for flouting the order of the Court for a considerable period of time, keeping in mind that the order on the writ petition was passed on 16.1.2008 and served in the office on 28.2.2008. This Court is therefore satisfied that the opposite parties have hindered the course of justice by not filing a show cause in time leading to mis-utilization by him of the Court proceedings and the time of the Court for which it considers it appropriate to impose cost of Rs.5,000/- upon him personally to be recovered from his salary and deposited by him in the Bihar State legal Services Authority within a maximum period of ten days and acknowledgment of deposit filed before this Court during that period. The contempt proceedings stand disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)