IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.964 of 2010 1. PARTIMA DEVI W/O UPENDRA YADAV R/O VILL.- RAJBANSHI TOLA, BELDARI UNDER PANCHAYAT RAJ MANJHWA, P.S.- SARSI, DISTT.- PURNIA 2. MAMTA DEVI W/O MANOJ PASWAN R/O VILL.- RAJBASHI TOLA, BELDARI UNDER PANCHAYAT RAJ, MANJHWA, P.S.- SARSI, DISTT.- PURNEA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. COLLECTOR, PURNEA SRI DR. S. SARWANAN 3. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, PURNEA SHRI AJIT KUMAR MANDAL ----------- 05. 15.04.2011 Counsel for the State has filed show cause reply on behalf of opposite parties placing on record the order dated 8.7.2010 passed by the Collector, Purnea placing reliance on the report of the District Programme Officer, Purnea dated 16.4.2010. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that under orders dated 18.8.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.9844 of 2009, Annexure-1 this Court having noticed the fact that the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banmankhi contained in letter no.2263 dated 8.11.2007, Annexure-1 was gathering dust directed the Collector, Purnea to consider the said report and pass order within one month from the date of receipt of the fresh representation annexing the order dated 18.8.2009. It is submitted that Collector, Purnea while passing order 2 dated 8.7.2010 considered only the report of the District Programme Officer, Purnea dated 16.4.2010 and not the earlier report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banmankhi dated 8.11.2007, as such he has violated the orders of this Court dated 18.8.2009. I regret not to accept such submission. This Court under orders dated 18.8.2009 had asked the Collector, Purnea to consider the report dated 8.11.2007. Such direction will always mean that the Collector had the authority to call for a fresh report and if he has chosen to call for a fresh report and relying on the fresh report dated 16.4.2010 passed order dated 8.7.2010, I am satisfied that he is not in contempt of the orders of this Court dated 18.8.2009. The contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 8.7.2010 if he is of the view that report dated 8.11.2007 ought to have been relied over the report dated 16.4.2010. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)