IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2651 of 2009 Neelam Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Mr. Neelam Kumar, Son of Late Damodar Prasad, R/o-Mohalla-Habibpura, At & P.O.-Soh Sarai, P.S.-Soh Sarai, District-Nalanda. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Er. Bindeshwar Ram, the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Minor Irrigation Circle, Gaya. –Opposite Parties. ----------- 03 06.04.2011 The petitioner had filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the cancellation of certificate of registration of contractors. By an interim order dated 22.04.2009, while adjourning the matter, this Court passed the interim order, which reads as follows:- “In the meantime, till further orders of this Court the operation of the order of the Water Resources Department, as contained in Annexure-4, to the extent that the earlier registrations would lapse would not operate.” The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding this order having been communicated to the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Gaya, in clear defiance of this Court’s order, he rejected the petitioner’s tender on 06.08.2009, which was communicated to the petitioner on 06.08.2009 wherein the only ground of rejection of petitioner-Neelam Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. Tender was that the status of his registration is not clear. There is no ambiguity in the language used. Pursuant to the show cause issued by this Court in these proceedings, a show cause has been filed by the Superintending Engineer, opposite party no.2, who as directed is - 2 - personally present as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this is a gross contempt committed by the Superintending Engineer. First by referring to the proceedings of the tender committee as appended by the Superintending Engineer himself in relation to the petitioner wherein there is clear reference to the order of this Court and then it is stated that the order would be operative till next date. Then the order states that the petitioner, vide Letter No. (blank) dated (blank), was asked to clarify as to the status of the order of the High Court but he has failed to reply or respond to it. This proceeding of the tender committee is signed on 20.07.2009. The petitioner has brought on record in the application itself that the notice to explain status of High Court order was itself issued on 23.07.2009 (Annexure-5) to which on 01.08.2009, petitioner replied (Annexure-6). It is, thus, clear that opposite party no.2 had deliberately connived to overreach the interim orders of this Court to give undue favour to another. Records and proceedings were being manufactured. Even before notices were issued the tender committee noted that there was no response to the notice which notice was not yet issued, the appropriate place in the tender committee proceedings having been left blank, but the fact is that petitioner responded and his tender was rejected on the ground that status of registration certificate was not clear as pleaded in the show cause. A justification is sought to be given that the petitioner was mandatorily required to give some other certificate of registration which was not given and as such the petitioner’s tender itself was - 3 - incompetent. Another justification sought to be given is that there was some confusion in the High Court’s order and there was some confusion in writing the order of rejection. In the end, unqualified apology is tendered. I am afraid the apology cannot be accepted. It is well settled principle of law in contempt proceedings that there cannot be a justification for the action and simultaneous unconditional apology. The facts noted above clearly demonstrate that the opposite party no.2 clearly orchestrated the things in favour of another to the detriment of the petitioner to overreach the orders of this Court. This is gross contempt. He is a senior officer and should have known his limits and jurisdiction. I, therefore, have no option but to hold him guilty of contempt. Before proceedings further, in view of the facts as noted above, I direct that this order be placed before the Additional Director General (Cabinet Vigilance), Government of Bihar, Patna for considering the proprieties of prosecuting opposite party no.2 under the provisions of Bihar Prevention of Specified Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. I also impose a fine on the opposite party no.2, the Superintending Engineer amounting to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) to be paid within 15 days in favour of Patna High Court Legal Aid Society and receipt must be filed immediately thereafter, failing which he is directed to be taken into custody for serving a simple imprisonment of one month. - 4 - This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent to Additional Director General (Cabinet Vigilance), Government of Bihar, Patna for compliance forthwith. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)