IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.467 of 2009 M/S SANTOSH PRINTING PRESS, through its authorized representative Santosh Kumar Jha, S/o-Sri. Bhagwan Lal Jha, resident of village-Sangi, P.S.-Phulparas, District-Madhubani. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Sri. R.J.M. Pillai, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Sri. Rajkumar Singh, the Secretary, Department of Disaster Management, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Sri. Jitendra Kumar Sinha, the District Magistrate, Patna at Patna, District-Patna. 4. Bihar State Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Patna through Sudama Prasad, the Managing Director. 5. Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi through Madhukar Gupta, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. ……..Respondents. ----------- 03. 29.07.2009 The petitioner alleges to have made certain supplies for emergent flood relief work in the year 2004 through Patna District. Various disputes were there, allegations and counter allegations, cases filed but the fact remain that petitioner in fact had made some supplies and no authority was ready to take responsibility to quantify the same and make payment. This Court by order dated 28.07.2008 passed in C.W.J.C., No. 11974 of 2007 directed the State to immediately constitute a Committee who would look into various aspects of the matter and after examining of the papers take a decision as to what is the amount payable to the petitioner. This direction was necessitated because there was different reports from - 2 - different governmental agencies which material differs in quantity of supplies. Those differences are noted in the order. The order of this Court for constituting a Committee and deciding the matter not having been complied, the present application has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings. During pendency of the contempt proceedings State has constituted a Committee and gave a report. The same has been filed along with a show cause of Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the report is contrary to and in defiance of the orders passed by this Court earlier. He submits that the Authorities have refused to refer to or look into the reports of certain agencies which had been noticed by this Court that is contemptuous. Having considered the matter, in my view, petitioner’s remedy lies in challenging correctness or otherwise of the report vis-a- vis the orders of this Court in the earlier writ petition. This eventually was contemplated in the Court itself in the earlier order. The Committee having taken a decision right, wrong or indifferent, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to challenge the said decision in an appropriate proceedings rather than pursuing this application for contempt where no positive direction can be issued - 3 - The petitioner has liberty to challenge the order as may be advised before the appropriate forum or in an appropriate proceedings. This application thus stands disposed of. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)