IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2457 of 2011 ====================================================== Binay Jha, Son of Late Bishambhar Jha, R/O Village and Post- Balvia Birgania, District- Sitamarhi, at present residing at Hari Vatika Chowk, P.S.- Bettiah Mufassil, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sri Afzal Amanullah, the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Sri Anand Kumar Dutta, the Under Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Sri Rajeshwar Dayal, The Director, Balmi, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. Sri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Valmiki Nagar, West Champaran. 6. Sri Dinesh Giri, the Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division- 1, Bettiah. .... .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== 5 19-10-2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although this Court has directed that the departmental proceeding be initiated and concluded within a period of six months. The authorities concerned have violated the order of this Court and authorities have proceeded after the lapse of six months. The facts are that after the order of this Court, it was submitted before the authorities concerned on 22.05.2010. Accordingly, the order of termination was recalled on 31.12.2010. Letter of recalling of termination order was cancelled on 10.03.2011 and, thereafter a show cause was issued on 06.04.2011. The petitioner filed the reply thereafter he has been terminated in September, 2011. 2 Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the department has not complied with the order of this Court and has taken its time in starting the proceeding. The reason for the delay is that the concerned authorities were involved in negotiation with the Government of Nepal which had released vast cubic feet of water which affected the villages in the State of Bihar. Considering the delay, this Court finds that perhaps it may be condoned. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of termination was bad on the ground that it has been passed on the orders of the Department concerned thereby the respondents have committed the same mistake, as it would amount denial of the right of appeal. These facts will be raised by the petitioner before the Court, if so advised. The present contempt application is being dropped. The contempt application is disposed for the reasons mentioned in the order. Bhardwaj/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)