IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2963 of 2009 PRABHA SHANKAR PANDEY, son of Nawal Kishore Pandey, resident of Mohalla Tulsinagar Bank Colony, Tilkamanjhi, P. S. Tilkamanjhi, District Bhagalpur…… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Govt. of Bihar at Patna namely 2. The Secretary, Bihar Public Works Department, Government of Bihar at Patna namely 3. the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Saharsa Division, Saharsa, namely.. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Saharsa Division, Saharsa, namely 5. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Saharsa Division, Saharsa, namely Sri Krishna Kanhaiya Jha. 6. The District Magistrate, Supaul, namely Mr. Kumar Ravi. ..Contemnors/opposite parties. ----------- 2. 23.06.2010 Though this case was listed under the heading “For Orders” for removal of defects, this Court has heard the party on merit. In the connected writ petition, CWJC No. 3420 of 2009, this Court by an order dated 23.3.2009 had held as follows:- “ That grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is purely a money claim. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that he has been subjected to harassment because he has earlier moved this Court against a decision of cancelling his contract. This Court normally would not entertain a writ 2 application for payment of contractor’s bill, inasmuch as they travel in the realm of contract but then if the petitioner’s any admitted amount is kept unpaid only because he had moved this Court challenging the earlier order that is wholly unfair. That being so, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner and look into specific aspect as alleged in paragraph no. 9 of the writ application.” Counsel for the State with reference to the show-cause filed by opposite parties would rely on a communication made to the petitioner vide letter no. 401 dated 9.9.2009 wherein the grievance of the petitioner seems to have been considered. Inasmuch as the order of this Court stands complied by passing of the aforementioned order dated 9.9.2009 duly communicated to the petitioner, there is nothing left for the petitioner to pursue in this contempt application. This application is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)