IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1936 of 2010 BANSH NARAYAN UPADHYAY . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. . ----------- 3. 30.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The writ Court did not interfere with the aspect of a punishment imposed. It only opined that the punishment imposed was grossly excessive and set aside not the punishment but the quantum of the punishment. Thereafter fresh orders of punishment have been passed on 23.11.2010. Though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade the Court that the order was not in consonance with law, the Court finds it difficult to examine that aspect in contempt jurisdiction. The correctness of the fresh order can only be examined on a fresh challenge in a writ application, if so advised. If so far as the direction for payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, the statement made in Paragraph-8 of the show cause filed by the opposite party no. 4, is treated as an undertaking on solemn assurance by him to the Court on oath in the present proceeding that payment shall be made to the petitioner. Should he belie the faith and trust that the 2 Court had placed in him, very serious consequence may ensue. It is expected that the undertaking and assurance shall be fully complied by payment of legitimate dues within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. The proceeding stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)