IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2355 of 2009 1. REWATI RAMAN PRASAD, SON OF LATE KARTIH PRASAD, R/O J/65, KANKARBAGH, P.S. KANKARBAGH, IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT – PATNA AND 2. MUNINDRA BHUSHAN PRASAD, SON OF LATE BHUWANESHWAR PRASAD, R/O 5/182, HANUMANNAGAR, P.S. KANKARBAGH IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF PATNA …………….…. PETITIONERS Versus 1. SRI V.JAISHANKAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, 6 MANGLES ROAD, PATNA AND 2. SRI RAM SHOBHIT JHA, SECRETARY OF PATNA SECRETARIATE MINISTRIAL OFFICERS COOPERATIVE HOUSE, CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD., B/1 SAHIBALAYA COLONY, FRONT OF CENTRAL SCHOOL, PATNA – 800020 ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 07.04.2010. This is an application for modification of order dated 29.04.2009 passed in MJC No. 338 of 2009. In the said order this Court had declined to interfere with the application for contempt. While declining this Court had observed as follows: “……. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners were entitled to big plots instead of small plots. That show that orders have already been passed. It is for the petitioner to challenge consequential order in competent 2 court. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners went up to the Supreme Court. It is also further submitted that another petition is pending and the court directed that no construction will be made. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the consequential order it is for the petitioners to challenge the same in the writ petition.” It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have not approached the Supreme Court and there was no direction by this Court to the effect that no construction would be made. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are apprehensive that the same might be used against them in the writ petition which they have already filed and is pending for adjudication. Be it noted, the said writ petition is numbered as CWJC No. 15279 of 2001. Regard being had to the apprehension expressed, we only clarify the statement that was recorded by the Division Bench was on the basis of some kind of mistaken submission at the Bar and the same should not be an impediment in adjudication of the writ petition which is pending before this Court. 3 With the aforesaid clarification, the application stands disposed of. Dilip ( Dipak Misra, C.J. ) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )