IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4119 of 2009 PINKY PRASAD, WIFE OF DEVENDRA KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GIDHAUR, P.O. & P.S. GIDHAUR, DIST. JAMUI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMUI. 2. SRI PREM SINGH MEENA, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMUI. 3. MD. SAHADAT HUSSAIN, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GIDHAUR, JAMUI. 4. KIRAN KUMARI, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, GIDHAUR, JAMUI. 5. DILIP RABIDAS, MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, PATSANDA, GIDHAUR, JAMUI. 6. RAM NIRANJAN MANDAL, PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, PATSANDA, GIDHAUR, JAMUI. ----------- 03. 28.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 4. Under orders of this Court dated 21.8.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10205 of 2009, Annexure-1 direction was given to the District Magistrate, Jamui to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 12.7.2009, Annexure-4 of the said writ petition, which representation has been rejected in effect in the light of the subsequent proceedings of the Aam Sabha dated 4.7.2009 under orders dated 22.2.2010, Annexure-F. Counsel submits that perusal of order dated 22.2.2010 would indicate that District Magistrate did not consider the said representation as he was of the view that in view of the proceedings of the subsequent Aam Sabha, the same is not required to be considered. Aforesaid view of the District Magistrate may be incorrect but such order is to be passed when petitioner will challenge order dated 22.2.2010. This contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge order dated 22.2.2010. Appointment of Ranju Devi shall, however be subject to the result of subsequent writ petition, which petitioner may file. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)