IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3108 of 2007 RAJNI KANT UPADHYAY & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- O R D E R 9/ 23.03.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State and respondent no.3. This M.J.C. application has been filed by the 19th petitioners for initiating a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties on allegation that they have willfully and deliberately violated the judgment and order dated 12.02.2007 passed by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice, Dr. J.N. Bhatt in C.W.J.C. No. 11056 of 2000. From perusal of the record it appears that on 15.02.2010 this Court had directed the Director-in-Chief, Health Services to be personally present in court and pursuant to the said direction the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, is present before this Court. On the next date the respondent no.3 was directed to be present because according to the direction of this Court respondent no.3 has referred the case of only one petitioner to the committee for consideration. During the course of hearing of this contempt application a supplementary affidavit has been filed and it - 2 - is submitted that now the case of all the other 18th petitioners have also been referred to the committee for decision and, therefore, this opposite party has already complied the order of this Court. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that there was two parts in the order passed by this Court. The first part was to constitute a Board consisting of three Secretaries and the said committee must be constituted within two months and the second part is that after considering the Uma Devi’s case the committee was directed to take a decision and the decision must be taken within six weeks. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that now the matter has been referred to the committee when the M.J.C. application has been filed with a view to avoid punishment in the contempt application and moreover the direction of this Court to comply the decision within six weeks has not been complied with. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that before the committee the petitioners appeared and they are praying time. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent relied upon the following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court : (1) 2002 (1) SCC 766 and 2003(3) SCC 513. - 3 - In the decision reported in 2002(1) SCC 766, Suresh Chandra Poddar Vrs.Dhani Ram and others the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that contempt jurisdiction is not be exercised casually but only sparingly and in very deserving cases. It is appropriate to bear in mind the adage “It is good to have the power of giant, but not good to use it always”. In 2003(3) SCC 513 ( D.S . Poonia Vrs. Yumnam Dimbajit Singh and another) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where there was substantial compliance with the directions issued by the High Court and respondents tendered unconditional apology for the faults alleged to have been committed by them, the court should show judicial grace and magnanimity in dealing with action for contempt. From perusal of the original order passed by this Court it appears that in the last portion of the order this Court has directed that it will open for the concerned parties to seek extension of time by taking leave from this Court. In my opinion, therefore, the time was not mandatory time. Further at paragraph-7 of the order this Court directed that only the committee concludes its process and exercise as directed herein above, status-quo in respect of the petitioners obtainable as on today, is - 4 - directed to be maintained. Therefore, the status- quo is prevailing. There is no allegation that status quo order has been violated. In view of the above, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the order of this Court has been substantially complied with and before the committee the petitioners had appeared and the committee shall proceed in accordance with law according to the direction of this Court to decide the petitioners’ claim . As such the contempt has got no merit and is accordingly, dropped. The M.J.C. application is, accordingly, dismissed. ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J ) BTiwary/