IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2278 of 2006 BISHWANATH PATHAK & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr.Suresh Kumar Ishwar, Advocate For the opposite party no.1 : Mr. Md.Anis Akhtar, Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General-X For the opposite parties 2 t 4 : Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate For opposite party No.5 : Mr. Ambar Nath Banerjee,Advocate ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal Dated, the 24th July, 2008. The present petitioner no.1 filed the writ petition being CWJC No.9461 of 1996 challenging the order passed by the Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, on 09th of September, 1989 constituting an ad hoc Managing Committee of Deo Narayan Mithila Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Sabha Sasaula, Sitamarhi dissolving the existing Managing Committee. 2. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 16th February, 2001. The operative order thereof reads thus: “11. In the result, the writ application is allowed with cost of Rs.2,000/- (two thousand) to be paid by respondent no.7 to the petitioner within two weeks. The impugned order, contained in Annexure 1, is quashed. It is needless to say that after quashing of the impugned order of the - 2 - Chairman of the Board, the Managing Committee functioning before it would revive and continue to function till any further action is taken in accordance with the principle decided by the Division Bench in the case of Chandra Nath Thakur V. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (supra).” 3. By this MJC the original petitioner has also added along with him Gauri Shankar Jha, an Assistant Teacher in Deo Narayan Mithila Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya as petitioner no.2 in this contempt petition, although he was not a party to the writ petition. 4. The principal grievance raised by means of this contempt petition is that the office order dated 15th November, 2005 passed by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board is in utter breach and disregard of this court’s order dated 16th February, 2001. 5. In our view, this MJC is liable to be rejected for more than one reason. For one, the original petitioner Bishwanath Pathak, who is petitioner no.1 in this contempt petition, is already dead. As a matter of fact, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that he may be deleted from array of parties. In that event, surely, the petitioner no.2 who was not party to the writ petition cannot be permitted to prosecute this contempt petition. Two, and more importantly, the order dated 15th November, 2005 can be said to be in breach or disregard of the order dated 16th February, 2001. The order is as a matter of fact pursuant to this court’s order. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the legality and correctness of the order dated 15th November, 2005, he ought to have challenged the same in appropriate - 3 - proceedings. The legality of the said order could not be indirectly set up in contempt jurisdiction against the respondents. 6. In all, what we have stated above, the MJC is liable to be rejected and is rejected. 7. This disposes of I.A.No.4086 of 2008 as well. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. sunil