IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3654 of 2011 Surjeet Singh, Son of late Bhagat Singh, Resident of Krishchand Colony Bettiah, P.S. Bettiah, District – West Champaran. …………. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sri Jayant Kumar, the Superintending Engineer, Yojna and Monetaring Anchal No. 2, Water Resources Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. ……… Opposite Parties. For the petitioner : - Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Advocate For the State : - Mr. Asit Kumar Jha, AC to GP 6. ----------- 04/ 23.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed for initiating a proceeding of contempt against opposite party no. 2, namely, Superintending Engineer for violation of order dated 27.04.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4567 of 2011. By the said order the writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Superintending Engineer, Tirhut Canal Circle, Raxaul, East Champaran for redressal of his grievances and if he approached the said authority within three weeks from that date along with relevant materials as well as a copy of that order, the said authority was directed to decide the same by speaking order within two months thereafter and if any amount or interest was admitted and payable, the said authority was directed to immediately pay the same to the petitioner, but if any amount or interest was not found payable in the said order, the petitioner was given liberty to challenge the same before an appropriate forum. 3. A show cause has been filed on behalf of the respondents annexing reasoned order dated 10.10.2011 (Annexure- 2 A) passed by Superintending Engineer by which the application of the petitioner was disposed of. In the said show cause unqualified and unconditional apologies were also tendered by the opposite parties for convenience caused due to delay. 4. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the said order is not compliance of the order dated 27.04.2011 as several matters have not been considered and admitted dues have not been paid. But the fact remains that by the said order dated 27.04.2011 this Court had only stated that the authority shall decide the matter and pay the amount admitted and payable. 5. By order dated 10.10.2011 authority concerned has found that the amount claimed by the petitioner was not payable. Hence, by the said order the authority has complied the order of this Court. The illegality or otherwise of the said order cannot be decided in a proceeding of contempt. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. DKS/ (S.N. Hussain, J.)