IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1800 of 2010 KAMESHWAR PRASAD, son of Late Mahendra Prasad, resident of Village- Madhubani, P.S. Bajpatti, District-Sitamarhi, at present residing at Dumra, Ward No.-6, P.S. Dumra, District- Sitamarhi. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Mr. Anup Mukherjee, Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Dr. M. Vijya Lakshmi, Inspector General, Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Mr. Vimla Nand Jha, District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 5. Mr. Rajendra Sahani, Treasury Officer, Sitamarhi. . . . . Opposite parties. ----------- 3/ 08.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has filed this application for initiation of contempt proceeding against opposite parties for their willful and deliberate violation and non-compliance of order dated 09.11.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9639 of 2006. The petitioner was holding license of selling court stamps in the District of Sitamarhi, having license no. 1/85-86. It is the petitioner’s case that on account of family feud, his own maternal brother Jitendra Kumar filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi alleging that he sold a fake stamp worth Rs. 10/-. The Complaint was filed on 12.09.2003. After some time on 16.10.2003 aforesaid Jitendra Kumar realizing his mistake filed a petition for dismissing the complaint petition. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi took cognizance under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 08.08.2005. thereafter Jitendra Kumar again filed a Complaint before the Registrar (Vigilance) vide Memo No. 904 dated 24.01.2006 requested the District & Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi to make a 2 detailed enquiry into the matter. Thereafter an enquiry into the matter was started by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi. Even after three years, the enquiry did not conclude, which forced to petitioner come to this Court in the writ jurisdiction. This Court directed the District Administration, Sitamarhi District to complete the enquiry within three months. This Court further observed that if the enquiry report does not point to guilt of the petitioner, the licensing authority may renew the license of the petitioner. A show-cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.5. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that on enquiry the government Press Nasik Road reported that two stamps were tampered and one was forged. In view of the aforesaid report, the Treasury officer recommended to the District Magistrate not to renew his license, but to cancel the same in the light of enquiry report, which was approved by the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi on 06.03.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner’s cousin had made allegation regarding selling of one fake stamp worth Rs. 10/-. However there was no occasion for the opposite party to send 17 stamps for scrutiny to Nasik Press. He further submits that he has been acquitted in the criminal prosecution. As report has been submitted and decision has been taken, no case for contempt is made out. If so advised, it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the subsequent decision taken by the 3 District Administration, Sitamarhi before the appropriate forum. With the aforesaid liberty, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)