IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.492 of 2010 Md. Quasim Khan aged 69 years son of Late Md. Isa resident of Bhimnagar, P.S. Birpur, District Supaul………………………………………………………………………………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 2. Sri Ajay B. Nayak, name of father not known to the petitioner, the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 3. Sri Anupam Kumar name of father not known to the petitioner, the Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Bihar, Pant Bhawan, Patna. 4. Sri K.N. Lal, name of father not known to the petitioner, the Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Water Resources Department, Old Secretariat Barrack, Patna. 5 Sri Sanjay Bishwas, name of father not known to the petitioner, the District Provident Fund Officer, Saharsa. 6. Sri Madan Prasad name of father not known to the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Circle, Birpur, District Supaul. 7. Sri Devendra Pandit name of father not known to the petitioner, the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Birpur, District Supaul. 8. Sri I.D.S. Dhariwal, the Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna…Opposite Parties ---------- 4 21.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State authorities and learned counsel for the Accountant General. The writ application of the petitioner was disposed of in a batch. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 26.09.2008, petitioner filed his 2 representation as contained in Annexure-3. From the order of the Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna contained in Memo No.1808 dated 19.05.2010 as contained in Annexure-B, it appears that representation of the petitioner has been considered and rejected as the claim of the petitioner has not been found admissible. Since a reasoned order has been passed rejecting the representation of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to proceed with the contempt matter. The application is dismissed. If so advised, petitioner may challenge the said order in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)