IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3155 of 2006 ARYA PRATHMIK PRASHIKSHAN MAHA Versus MADAN MOHAN JHA & ORS ----------- Advocates for the petitioner :- Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma Mr. Arun Kumar Lal For the Board :- Mr. Lalit Kishor, Sr. Advocate Mr. Girgesh Kumar, Advocate 7 16.9.2008 The present contempt application has been filed for implementation of the order dated 23.4.1996 by which this Court had ordered that the results of the students of Arya Prathamik Teachers Sikchha Maha Vidyalaya should be published within a period of six months. A show cause has been filed on behalf of the State. There are two aspects with respect to the present contempt application. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the said institution had come to this Court in the year 1992 seeking a direction from this Court for declaration of the results of the students of this college for the sessions 1983-85, 1984- 86 and 1985-87. A Division Bench of this Court had rejected the prayer made by the institution. At present the position is that 2 all institutions imparting teachers training have to have recognition from N.C.T.T.E. On the basis of the aforesaid facts it is submitted that the State Government cannot implement the order of this Court, as it would be completely against the law laid down on this issue in the earlier judgments delivered by a Division Bench. There is another aspect of this case. The order proposed to be implemented is dated 23.4.1996 and the contempt application has been filed on 22.12.2006. In the opinion of this Court the contempt application itself has been filed after delay of ten years without any explanation, as such is not fit to entertained. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had filed a writ numbered as CWJC No. 11405 of 2006 for the same relief as that prayed for in CWJC No. 4935 of 1984 but the writ application was withdrawn on 6.12.2006. It is, therefore, submitted that the delay in filing of the contempt application is explained. The explanation offered by the petitioner is not acceptable to this Court, as 3 the issues raised were already decided in the case of this school in an earlier writ application. In view of the aforesaid discussion the contempt application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)