IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3434 of 2010 RAMA RANI BAKSHI, DAUGHTER OF LATE AMAR NATH BAKSHI, RESIDENT OF SHAKUN VILLA, MAURYA VIHAR COLONY, CHANAKYA PATH, KUMHARAR, PATNA, POLICE STATION- AGAMKUAN, DISTT.- PATNA :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SRI BHANU PRATAP SHARMA, FINANCE COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT OLD SECRETARIAT COMPOUND, POLICE STATION- SACHIVALAYA, DISTRICT- PATNA. 2. SHRI AMITABH VERMA, SECRETARY, CO- OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VIKAS BHAWAN, POLICE STATION- SACHIWALYA, DISTRICT- PATNA. 3. SHRI DILIP JAISWAL, CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT B/2, FIRST FLOOR, MAURYA LOK, POLICE STATION- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA. 4. SHRI UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT B/2, FIRST FLOOR, MAURYA LOK, POLICE STATION- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA:-- -RESPONDENT…CONTEMNORS….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 4. 10.05.2011. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Under orders dated 01.02.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 04 of 2010, Annexure-3 this Court asked the authorities to consider grant of extension of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years for the period between May, 2008 till 31.10.2008 as was directed by the Division Bench in L.P.A.no. 812 of 2009. It appears, in compliance of the order passed in L.P.A.No. 812/2009 State Government considered and rejected such request under order bearing Memo No. 4814 dated 25.11.2010 read with the corrigendum bearing Memo No. 5056 dated 2 08.12.2010, copy whereof is contained in Annexures A and B to the show-cause filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 25.11.2010 read with corrigendum dated 08.12.2010 does not indicate that the said order has been passed with reference to the order of the High Court dated 01.02.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 04/2010 alleging violation whereof this contempt petition has been filed. It is true that the order dated 25.11.2010 and corrigendum dated 08.12.2010 does not refer to the order of this Court dated 01.02.2010 but the said order proceeded on the basis of the order dated 08.01.2010 passed in L.P.A.No. 812 of 2009 in compliance whereof aforesaid order dated 25.11.2010 and corrigendum dated 08.12.2010 has been passed. 3. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to proceed with this contempt application for the technical violation of the order dated 01.02.2010, Annexure-3. This contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order dated 25.11.2010 and corrigendum dated 08.12.2010. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)