IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.596 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Satya Prakash Ojha S/O Shiv Dutt Ojha R/O Vill.- Senduer (Bhagwan Tola), P.S. Janta Bazar, Distt.- Saran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sri........................................., Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Deptt. Of Education, Bihar, Patna 3. Sri.........................................., District Magistrate, Saran 4. Sri........................................., Deputy Development Commissioner, Saran 5. Sri......................................., Sub-Divisional Officer, Saran 6. Sri........................................., District Superintendent Of Education, Saran 7. Sri........................................., Block Development Officer, Labladpur, Saran 8. Sri......................................., Block Education Extension Officer, Labladpur, Saran 9. Sri......................................., Mukhiya, Dayalpur Gram Panchayat Labladpur, Saran 10. Sri........................................., Panchayat Secretary, Dayalpur, Gram Panchayat, Labladpur, Saran 11. Neetu Kumari D/O Suresh Singh R/O Senduar P.S. Janta Bazar, P.O.- Dayalpur, Distt.- Saran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc14) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 5 21-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the official opposite parties and the private opposite parties. Show cause is stated to have been filed on 15.12.2011, but the same is not available on record. The Court requested the counsel for the State to make available his copy for perusal so as not to hold up the proceedings on Patna High Court MJC No.596 of 2010 (5) dt.21-12-2011 2 that ground. The office shall place the original on record. The Writ Court did not find any substance in the claim of the petitioner, but directed an enquiry into the appointment of Respondent No.11. The statutory authority has held the enquiry and concluded tht the appointment of Opposite Party No.11 was not in accordance with law. Directions have been issued by the statutory authority for implementation of its order. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.11 submits that the order of the statutory authority dated 1.8.2009 was not in accordance with law inasmuch as no notice was issued to her. The order itself states that notices were issued to the concerned. Whether notice was issued to the Opposite Party No.11 or not itself becomes a disputed question of fact. No further enquiry is possible in the contempt jurisdiction. It is for the aggrieved now to seek appropriate remedies against the order of the Block Development Officer dated 1.8.2009. The contempt proceedings stand disposed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)