IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1861 of 2011 Ravindra Nath Singh . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 4. 16.11.2011 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Court remains uncomplied and the Director General of Police has passed no orders. Two show cause have been filed which does not help consideration in the contempt jurisdiction. On the suggestion of the counsel for the State the matter was referred by the Court to the Director General of Police for passing a reasoned order. It needs no discussion that the decision was to be taken by the Director General of Police. The petitioner is stated to be an office bearer of the Bihar Police Association. The least that was expected from him was to comply the order of the Court in the manner directed first, before he alleged non-compliance. Instead of furnishing a copy of the Court order in the office of the Director General of Police, addressed to him, the petitioner appears to have addressed his representation enclosing a copy of the Court order to the Commandant B.M.P.-XVI. The Commandant was under direction of the Court to dispose the 2 representation. Undoubtedly a copy of the representation has been marked to the Director General of Police. The Court order was enclosed in the representation to the Commandant. The Director General of Police is entitled to legitimately presume that if only a copy has been marked to him and a representation is substantively addressed to the Commandant, presumably the Court has given directions to the Commandant himself as otherwise the petitioner would have submitted the representation before the Director General of Police. The power of a contempt proceeding is severe but it requires the same level of caution in its exercise. Based on the conduct of the petitioner himself the Court is not satisfied to proceed in the contempt jurisdiction. If it had been brought to the attention of the office of the Director General of Police that he was required to comply with a Court order and the order still remained uncomplied, matters may have been different. Here the matter was drawn to the attention of the Commandant when no such direction had been given to him. The reality that the representation in the circumstances may have simply formed part of the records in the office of the Director General cannot be ignored. 3 Liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a copy of the representation afresh addressed to the Director General of Police along with a copy of the Court order. The Court hopes and expects that there shall be no occasion for it to go into the aspect of compliance of the order any further. The proceeding stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)