IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1217 of 2010 1. SUDARSHAN TIWARY S/O DR. NAND KISHORE TIWARY R/O MOHALLAH- NIRALA SAHITYA MANDIR, BIJALI SAHEED, SASARAM, P.S.- SASARAM (TOWN), DISTT.- ROHTAS (BIHAR), PIN CODE-821115 Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA, DISTT.- PATNA (BIHAR) 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ROHTAS AT SASARAM, DISTT.- ROHTAS (SASARAM) 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ROHTAS AT SASARAM, DISTT.- ROHTAS (SASARAM) 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER SASARAM, DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SASARAM, DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER SASARAM DISTRICT, ROHTAS AT SASARAM 7. OFFICE IN CHARGE OF POLICE STATION SASARAM (TOWN), DISTT.- ROHTAS (SASARAM) 8. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAGAR PARISHAD, SASARAM, DISTT.- ROHTAS (SASARAM) 9. MUZAFFAR IMAM S/O YUSUF IMAM R/O VILL.- BIJALI SAHEED, CHAWAR TAKIYA, SASARAM POLICE STATION, SASARAM (TOWN), DISTT.- ROHTAS (BIHAR) 10. HAIDAR IMAM S/O YUSUF IMAM R/O VILL.- BIJALI SAHEED, CHAWAR TAKIYA, SASARAM POLICE STATION, SASARAM (TOWN), DISTT.- ROHTAS (BIHAR) 11. AMIR IQBAL S/O YUSUF IMAM R/O VILL.- BIJALI SAHEED, CHAWAR TAKIYA, SASARAM POLICE STATION, SASARAM (TOWN), DISTT.- ROHTAS (BIHAR) 12. DANIS IMAM S/O YUSUF IMAM R/O VILL.- BIJALI SAHEED, CHAWAR TAKIYA, SASARAM POLICE STATION, SASARAM (TOWN), DISTT.- ROHTAS (BIHAR) 13. AURANGZEB IMAM S/O YUSUF IMAM R/O VILL.- BIJALI SAHEED, CHAWAR TAKIYA, SASARAM POLICE STATION, SASARAM (TOWN), DISTT.- ROHTAS (BIHAR) 14. SHAHID IMAM S/O YUSUF IMAM R/O VILL.- BIJALI SAHEED, CHAWAR TAKIYA, SASARAM POLICE STATION, SASARAM (TOWN), DISTT.- ROHTAS (BIHAR) ----------- 3. 08.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Circle 2 Officer, Sasaram alone in pursuance of the order dated 29.3.2011. It acknowledges the institution of Encroachment Case No. 25 of 2008-09, but submits that Title Suit No. 596 of 2009 has been filed before the Sub- Judge, Ist, Sasaram by persons claiming title over the municipal plot in question against the respondents. It is not possible for this Court to give any direction in that background with regard to the encroachment case. The contention of the petitioner that there is no injunction order etc. in the suit are matters to be more appropriately considered in the encroachment proceedings itself. In the order dated 29.3.2011, the Court had more than adequately noticed the conduct of the respondents in not filing a counter affidavit despite passage of over one year and had directed respondent nos. 2 and 4 to 8 to file separate counter affidavits explaining why they had not filed any counter affidavit. The conduct of the respondents in filing a counter affidavit jointly through the Circle Officer is contumacious and in the teeth of the direction of the Court. The contumacious conduct of the respondents is aggravated in not furnishing any explanation. There is not even a whisper of suggestion in the counter affidavit for not 3 filing counter affidavit in due time. Court orders are meant to be complied with and are not written as platitudes in the order sheet. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar to form a compulsory case study in framing of the State litigation policy along with the order dated 29.3.2011. It is expected that officers senior in rank as the District Magistrate shall be more careful in further while filing a counter affidavit in this Court. The application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)