IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1149 of 2011 Anil Kumar son of Late Gokhul Prasad R/o village Gopalbad P.O. Gopalbad P.S.Sarmera District Nalanda. … Petitioner. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar. 2.Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha son of not known, Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 3.Sri Rameshwar Singh son of not known, Secretary, Planning and Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.Sri Rameshwar Singh, son of not known, Director, Statistical and Evaluation, Bihar, Patna. 5.Sri A.K.Negi, son of not known, Secretary, Co-operative Department, Bihar, Patna. 6.Sri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, son of not known, D.M. Nalanda. 7.Sri Surendra Kumar Sudhanshu, son of not known, District Statistics Officer, Nalanda. 8.Sri Sanjay Kumar, son of not known, B.D.O.,Sarmera. 9.Sri Mani Roushan Prasad son of not known, Block Agriculture Officer, Sarmera. 10.Sri Mithilesh Prasad, son of not known C.I., Sarmera. 11.Sri Ambika Rajak son of not known, Junior Statistics Supervisor, Sarmera Block. 12.Sri M.K.Poddar son of not known, Managing Director, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. 13.Sri K.K.Mahapatra son of not known, Zonal Manager(Officer in-charge, Agriculture Insurance Company Ltd. Ground Plaza, Fraser Road, Patna. Opp. Parties. ----------- 2. 29.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. Even if we accept he entire submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner, the situation is as such: 2 The Division Bench directed the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar as well as the District Magistrate, Nalanda to ensure that the figures required by the Insurance Company with regard to the actual yield of Agahani Paddy crop in Sarmera Anchal for Kharif- Season 2008 be made available to the Insurance Company within one month from the date of the order dated 26th April 2010. Thereafter the Insurance Company was to take decision as per the policy within two months. According to the petitioner, in stead of taking 16 cuttings of crops, the subordinate authorities of the Sarmera Anchal procured only 12 cuttings and hence the actual yield report was defective and was not accepted by the Insurance Company for payment of insurance amount. In the aforesaid situation, the opposite parties to this contempt application, the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar and the District Magistrate, Nalanda cannot be faulted for submitting whatever figures of yield was made available by the Block authorities. They have also made recommendation for payment as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, in our view, it is not a case where the opposite parties can be held guilty of 3 deliberate disobedience of this Court. The contempt application is therefore, disposed of. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is so advised, he may claim damages from the concerned block officials for their negligence and if so advised may also pursue his claim for insurance amount against the Insurance Company according to law. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)