IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1364 of 2007 BALESHWAR NARAIN SINHA @ BALESHWAR NARAIN SINGH, son of Late Gopal Singh, resident of village Chakcima, P.S. Patori, District Samastipur--------------------petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Sub-Divisional Officer, Patori, District Samastipur 3.Sri Sanjay Sharma, Circle Officer, Block Patori, District Samastipur 4.Gauri Shankar Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Lakhan Singh, resident of village Shahpurundi, P.S. Shahpur Patory, District Samastipur--------opp.parties ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Kumar Alok,Advocate Mr.Amit, Advocate For the opp.party :Mr.Sanjay Kumar No.1,GP 14 Mr.Pawan Kumar,AC to GP 14 ----- 7. 05.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader No.14. The contempt application has been filed for violation of the interim order dated 16.1.2007 passed by this Court in which the order dated 26.6.2004 rejecting the objection petition filed by the petitioner in Measurement Case No.2 of 2002-03 had been stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner served the copy of the interim order of this Court on the Circle Officer, Patori and Sub-Divisional Officer Shahpur Patori the said opposite party No.3, Circle Officer, wrongly interpreting the interim order dated 16.1.2007 of stay of this Court as an order of status quo recommended to the Sub- 2 Divisional Officer to initiate a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner in a most arbitrary manner in connivance with opposite party No.4. This Court has considered the statements made by the petitioner and the stand taken in the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3. It is evident from the actions of the opposite parties that they are acting in a most biased and collusive manner in favour of the opposite party No.4. It is admitted by learned counsel for the State that an order of stay cannot be interpreted as though it is merely an order of status quo. Moreover, this Court does not find any justification for the initiation of the unilateral action only against one of the parties to the dispute when sufficient power has been given even under the Criminal Procedure Code to the Executive authorities for restraining both the parties in a case where breach of the peace is apprehended. However, learned counsels for the parties are unable to say as to whether Section 107 proceeding was taken to its logical conclusion. 3 In the above circumstances, although this Court has a strong suspicion regarding the actions of the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 in the matter and such actions border upon contempt, but on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, it is decided not to proceed any further in the matter. The contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/