IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3100 of 2005 BINOD PASWAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner :Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the opposite parties :Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, JC to GA 7 ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 08th July, 2008. We perused the order dated 29.08.2005. The operative part thereof reads thus: “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent Collector, Gaya is directed to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner as contained in Annexure 9 by speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. In case the collector would be satisfied that till date the petitioner is working on the post of chowkidar since June,2002, he will direct for payment of his salary forthwith.” 2. In response to this contempt application, the opposite party no.2 has shown cause along with an affidavit wherein it is stated thus: “ 3. That it is submitted that during the pendency of this contempt petition certain developments took place which necessitated to bring on record by way of this supplementary show cause. - 2 - 4. That it is most humbly submitted that action has been taken against the erring officers in the manner as mentioned below:- (A) The Superintendent of Police, Gaya vide this office letter No.925/Gen.dtd.1.8.06 has been requested to initiate a Departmental proceeding against the then officer-in-charge, P.S. Tekari. A zerox copy of the letter dtd. 1.8.06 is annexed as Annexure-A. (B) The present Sub-Divisional Officer Tekari (Gaya) has been directed to frame charges in proforma „K‟ against the erring S.D.O. and Anchal Adhikari Tekari for initiating Departmental proceeding against them vide this office letter No.924/Gen. dtd. 1.8.06. A zerox copy of the letter dtd. 1.8.06 is annexed as Annexure-B.” 3. It, thus, appears that the District Magistrate, Gaya, has considered the case of the petitioner on his representation and disposed of the same by speaking order on 31st of December, 2005. The legality and correctness of the order dated 31st of December, 2005 cannot be a subject matter of consideration in the contempt application. If the petitioner is aggrieved by that order, he must pursue the appropriate remedy available to him in law in assailing that order. 4. With the aforesaid observations, MJC is disposed of. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil