IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4763 of 2010 Rajeev Kumar son of Sri Radhey Shyam Sharma, resident of village Bhikhari Chapra, Bahlolpur, P.O. Latrahiya, P.S. Parsa, District Chapra………………………………………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Anup Mukherji S/o not known to the petitioner, Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Sri C.K. Mishra S/o not known to the petitioner, Principal Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Rajeshwar Thakur, S/o not known to the petitioner, Regional Director, Health Services, Saran at Chapra, District Saran at Chapra. 4. Naresh Kumar S/o not known to the petitioner, Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Saran at Chapra, District Saran. 5. Kumkum Sinha, Additional Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon Saran at Chapra……………………….Opposite parties. For the petitioner : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Babita Singh, Advocate. For the intervener : Mrs. Pushpa Singh and Mr. Rakesh Kr.Singh, Advocates. ---------------------------------- 17/ 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 deliberately violating order dated 09.08.2010 passed by this court in C.W.J.C. No.10962 of 2010 for not carrying out the said order in transferring Dr. Dilip Kumar Singh and Dr. Rakhi Singh and for not taking any action against them. 3. It transpires that C.W.J.C. No.10962 of 2010 was filed by petitioner for transferring respondent nos.7 and 8 and also for taking action against them, by suppressing the fact that they were getting posted in their home district, home block and misutilising the medicines of hospital for which - 2 - representation had been filed by the petitioner before the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna on 29.03.2010 but no heed was being paid to the said representation and the matter was being unnecessarily delayed causing injustice. 4. This court vide order dated 09.08.2010 disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to file an application before the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna stating the matter in detail along with a copy of the said order and if such application was filed within fifteen days, the said authority was directed to consider the matter which was pending since long and dispose of in accordance with law within two months thereafter. 5. In compliance of the said order the petitioner filed an application before the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna on 15.08.2010 raising all the points which were taken in the writ petition but when no order was passed by the authorities within the time prescribed the petitioner had approached this court for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have filed their show-cause and supplementary show-cause in which they have tendered unqualified apologies and have also produced the order of the Principal Secretary dated 16.09.2011 which was sent by letter no.1055(2) dated 20.09.2011 in which the claim of the petitioner was rejected after considering the - 3 - matter in view of the directions of this court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court had directed the authorities concerned to consider the matter and decide it in accordance with law, but although all the points and the matter were raised by the petitioner in his application filed on 15.08.2010 as per the direction of the High Court, the said points and matter had not been considered and decided by the authority concerned in its order dated 20.09.2011 ignoring that they were relevant matters with respect to the merit of the issues involved. 8. However, a speaking order has been passed by the authority concerned complying the earlier order of this court and the authorities concerned have also tendered unqualified apologies for the delay. Hence, if aggrieved, the petitioner may challenge the said order of the authority dated 20.09.2011 raising all those points in an appropriate case before an appropriate forum, as this court in its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 cannot decide the merit of such issues. 9. In the said circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)