IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3420 of 2011 M.B.Arogya Sansthan through its President Ram Surat Prasad Sinha son of Late Ram Kailash Prasad, having office at Mohalla-Mubarakganj, P.O. + P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Shri Ravindra Pawar I.A.S., Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner Public Health Engineering Department, Patna. 2. Shri Ganesh Prasad Yadav, son of name not known to petitioner, Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D., Sasaram cum Member Secretary of the District Water Supply and sanitation Committee, Rohtas at Sasaram, Distt. Rohtas. 3. Shri Arun Kumar Srivastwa, son of name not known to petitioner, Deputy Development Commissioner, cum Chairman, District Water Supply and Sanitation Committee, Rohtas at Sasaram…………………………….Respondents. For the petitioner : M/s A.B. Ojha, and S.N. Jha, Advocates. For the opposite parties : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, AC to SC-8 ---------------------------------- 05/ 16.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding of contempt of court against the opposite parties for violating and not complying the order of this court dated 17.01.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No.392 of 2011 by which the authorities were directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within fifteen days from the date of filing a fresh representation by the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the order of this court has already been complied with as the authority has disposed of the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order dated 20.06.2011 which has been annexed as - 2 - Annexure-C to the show-cause and the amount of Rs.7,40,800.00 which was due and payable to the petitioner has already been paid by cheque dated 23.06.2011. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the earlier order of this court appears to have been fully complied with but the petitioner is still aggrieved by subsequent order passed by the authority concerned. 5. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order dated 20.06.2011 in an appropriate proceeding, if he so likes. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)