IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.349 of 2007 1. ANJANI KUMAR JHA SON OF SHREE RAJDEVA JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- VISHAWANATHPUR, POLICE STATION- DUMARA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. 2. ASHOK KUMAR JHA SON OF SHREE RAJDEVA JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- VISHAWANATHPUR, POLICE STATION- DUMARA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. 3. RAM JIVAN KUMAR ROY SON OF SHREE BHIKHARI ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- VISHAWANATHPUR, POLICE STATION- DUMARA, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 4. HARI CHARAN ROY SON OF SHREE RAMASHISH ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- VISHAWANATHPUR, POLICE STATION- DUMARA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. 5. DHARMENDRA KUMAR ROY SON OF SHREE RAM BILASH ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHAWPRASED, POLICE STATION- DUMARA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. 6. SURENDRA PRASAD YADAV SON OF SHREE BHOLA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MEHSAUL TOAL BHANGURAHI, POLICE STATION- SITAMARHI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR. 2. MR. SUMAN KUMAR, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI. 3. MR. HIRAMUNI PRABHAKAR, NAJARAT DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SITAMARHI. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. with MJC No.3047 of 2008 RAM LAKHAN ROY SON OF SHREE SAHADEVA ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- VISHAWANATHPUR, POLICE STATIO- DUMARA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MR. R.J.M. PILLAI, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR. 3. MR. VIJAY KUMAR, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI. 4. MR. SAWAPNIL SINGH, NAJARAT DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SITAMARHI. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 6. 11.11.2009. Counsel for the petitioner has filed reply to the show cause filed on behalf of the respondents, which is taken on record. - 2 - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the opposite party. These contempt applications have been filed alleging non compliance of the orders of this Court dated 13.12.2006 passed in C.W.J.C.No.6657 of 2006 where under this Court directed the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi to consider the objection of the petitioners dated 13.8.2003 and thereafter to prepare fresh panel in the light of the order passed on the objection of the petitioners. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that without considering their objections as also without hearing the petitioners the order dated 15th January,2007 (Annexure-C to the show cause) has been passed by the District Magistrate. It appears from perusal of the said order that the said order was passed after notice to the petitioners. Counsel submits that no notice ever was given to the petitioners for appearing in support of their objection. Such fact can be verified only if the petitioners challenge the order dated 15th January,2007. - 3 - N.H./ It is further submitted by the petitioner that under order bearing Memo No.4533 dated 29.11.2007 (Annexure-3) and another order (Annexure-4), persons have been appointed in the Collectorate at Sitamarhi, who were not included either in the year 1987 or 2003 panel and such appointment is absolutely illegal. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, I am of the view that the illegalities alleged can be examined only if the petitioners challenge the order dated 15th January,2007 (Annexure-C to the show cause) as also the order bearing Memo No.4533 dated 29.11.2007 (Annexures 3 and 4) by filing separate writ petition. Both the contempt applications are disposed of. ( V.N. Sinha,J.)