IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.995 of 2008 ***** Mauzi Lal Sinha, Retired Accountant aged about 71 years, son of Late Rampati Singh Resident of Ramnagar, Bengali Tola, G.P.O. Patna. ….. …... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Arvind Kumar Singh, I.A.S. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Sri Akhileshwar Prasad, Financial Controller No.1, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 4. Shri Dharmdeo Das Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. ….. ….. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K.Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent State : Mr. S.B.Kumar, Standing Counsel- XVI For the Respondent BSEB: Mr. V.K.Singh, Advocate ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 22nd October, 2008. In this contempt application, the grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 23rd April, 2004 has been disobeyed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4. 2. The relevant operative order dated 23rd April, 2004 reads thus: - “Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. At the same time, the order passed by the appellant-Board, as - 2 - contained in Annexure „1‟ to the writ petition, for recovery of Rs.52,186=44 is also quashed and the appellant-Board is directed first to decide the exact amount, which is to be recovered from the writ petitioner-respondent after giving him an opportunity of hearing and, thereafter, to proceed according to law.” 3. According to the petitioner, although a fresh order has been passed pursuant to the aforesaid direction but without affording any opportunity of hearing to him and thereby the respondent nos. 2 to 4 have committed contempt of the order dated 23rd April, 2004. 4. The counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 submitted that subsequent to the order dated 23rd April, 2004, a fresh order has been passed by the Board on 1st September, 2006. He further submits that the legality and correctness of that order has been put in issue by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 15782 of 2006 by the petitioner. 5. We are afraid, this contempt application is not only misconceived but abuse of process of the Court. Since the order dated 1st September, 2006 has already been passed in pursuance of the order dated 23rd April, 2004, question of contempt of the order of this Court does not arise. If the order dated 1st September, 2006 has been passed without hearing the petitioner, the said contention shall be examined in writ petition that has already been filed by the petitioner but surely a case for contempt is not made out. 6. Contempt application is accordingly dismissed. - 3 - 7. We clarify that this order shall not influence the consideration of the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 15782 of 2006) on merit as we have only dealt with the aspect of contempt matter. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-