IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4796 of 2010 BHARAT THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 4. 16.3.2011. Heard Mr. Subh Narain Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, learned Assisting Counsel to S.C.I for the State. The petitioner alleges non-compliance of the order dated 30.4.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No.3520 of 2006. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Executive Engineer to discharge his obligation in the light of the directions of this court issued in C.W.J.C.No.8301 of 2003. Learned counsel for the State, with reference to Annexures-F to I of the show cause, submits that despite repeated intimations to the petitioner to explain the outstanding against his name, he has not approached the authorities enabling them to pass orders in relation to the issue raised by him. He submits that it is the petitioner who is responsible for not allowing the Executive Engineer to pass the orders by not cooperating in the matter. 2 From the perusal of the communication which is on the record of the show cause, it is manifest that the petitioner has repeatedly been directed to contact the Executive Engineer so as to explain the outstanding against his name, but he has failed to do so. As a consequence thereof, the outstanding continued to stand against his name. In that view of the matter, no case for contempt is made out against the respondents. The contempt application is disposed of. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J)