IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2441 of 2011 Prem Chandra Jha, son of late Adityanath Jha, Proprietor Rajdhani Litho Art Printing Press, resident of village+ P.O. and P.S. Barahiya, District Lakhisarai. …….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna, namely Mrs. N.Vijay Laxmi. 2. The Project Director, “Atma” Supaul cum District Agriculture Officer, Supaul, District Supaul.namely Mr. Shahsi Prasad Singh. 3. The Director, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, namely Mr. Arbendra Singh. 4. The District Magistrate-cum-President “Atma” Supaul, District- Supaul, namely Kumar Ravi. …. Opposite parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Suman Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Mr. Shatrughna Pandey, A. C. to S.C. 23. ----------- 06/ 28.09.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the opposite parties for initiating a proceeding of contempt for intentionally disobeying order dated 14.02.2011 passed by this court in CWJC No.1152 of 2011 which was disposed of with the observations as follows: “ 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate, Supaul, who is also President of Atma (respondent no.4) along with an application giving details of his claim as well as a copy of this order. If such an application is filed by the petitioner before the said authority, he shall decide the same within two months from the said date and all the admitted dues shall be paid to the petitioner immediately thereafter. However, if any amount is found to be not payable, the said authority shall pass a reasoned order with respect thereto within - 2 - the aforesaid period and the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same before an appropriate forum.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately thereafter the petitioner filed an application dated 22.02.2011 before the District Magistrate, Supaul annexing a copy of the said order raising his claim with respect to payment of two amounts, i.e. Rs.4,93,551.00 and Rs.1,08,738.00, but the said order had not been complied by the authorities and hence the petitioner was constrained to file this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties produced order dated 30.07.2011 (Annexure-A) passed by the Project Director, Atma, Supual by which the first claim of the petitioner was allowed and a cheque of Rs.4,93,551.00 (Annexure- B) was given to the petitioner. Furthermore, it had been mentioned in the said order that so far the second claim of the petitioner was concerned, the matter was being investigated and it will be decided within fifteen days as at that time the register of receipt and supply of the store was not available. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further states that on 03.09.2011, the matter was again considered and it was finally held by the Project Director after verification that the claim of Rs.1,08,738.00 of the petitioner was not proper as no such work order was given by the said Department nor there was any receipt/challan to show any supply. Hence the claim of petitioner with respect to the second grievance was rejected. - 3 - 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that the order of this court dated 14.02.2011 passed in CWJC No.1152 of 2011 has already been complied by the respondents-authorities and if the petitioner was aggrieved by the subsequent order of the authorities, he should have challenged it before an appropriate forum, instead of taking recourse of filing this petition, which is absolutely frivolous and is accordingly dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)