IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3983 of 2011 Vidya Shankar Ojha, son of late Ram Raksha Ojha, resident of Mohalla Sheochandra Path, Kalimandir Road Hanuman Nagar, P.S. Patrakarnagar, Patna District Patna. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sri Ravindra Paswan, son of not known, the Principal Secretary, Puiblic Health Engineering Department (PHED) Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Satyendra Kumar, son of not known, the Chief Engineer, Patna Region Public Health Engineering Department, Patna. 4. Dineshwar Prasad Singh, son of not known , the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Patna. Circle, Patna. 5. Vijay Kumar Srivastava, son of not known, the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Biharsharif Division at Biharsharif, District Nalanda. 6. Rajesh Kumar , son of not known, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Health Sub-Division, Harnaut, District Nalanda. 7. Sri Nagendra Kumar, son of not known, the Assistant Engineer, Public Health Sub- Division at Biharsharif, P.S. Biharsharif, District Nalanda. 8. Md. Amiruddin, son of not known the Junior Engineer, Public Health Sub-Division, Biharsharif, Harnaut Cell, District Nalanda. -------------- For the Petitioner : M/s Uma Shankar Prasad and Jagdish Prasad Singh, Advocates For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, A.C. to G.P. 20 ------------------ 05/ 30.11.2011 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 against the opposite parties for their deliberate and wilful disobedience and non-compliance of order dated 04.05.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4443 of 2011. 3. The concluding portion of the said order dated 04.05.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4443 of 2011 is as follows :- “After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the materials on record, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an - 2 - application before the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Patna Circle, Patna (respondent no.4) raising all points which he has raised before this Court. If such an application is filed by the petitioner before the said authority along with a copy of this order within fifteen days from today, the said authority shall decide the same by a speaking order within three months thereafter. If any amount and/or interest are found admitted and payable, the same should be immediately paid to the petitioner. However, if any amount and/or interest are not found admitted and payable in the said order, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate authority.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that in compliance of the said order, he filed an application before the authority concerned on 16.05.2011 (Annexure 8) and when a period of more than three months had lapsed and no order was passed by the authority concerned, then he filed the instant contempt petition on 07.09.2011, 5. However, by way of Annexure `A’ to the show cause, the opposite parties have come up with an order dated 24.08.2011, which appears to have been passed beyond the time granted by this Court. It is also stated that order was directed to be passed after considering the points, but in order dated 24.08.2011 the facts of the case and the cause for delay in the completion of works have not at all been considered as per the direction of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that according to the agreement between the parties dated 21.02.2009, 43 tube wells had to be installed by the petitioner within three months, but the - 3 - sites were allotted by the opposite parties to the petitioner much belatedly on 06.07.2009 extending time till 11.09.2009. He also averred that there was novation of contract twice at the instance of the opposite parties, who vide order dated 10.09.2009 directed the petitioner to install 10 tube wells at different sites by 30.09.1999, which were, accordingly, installed by the petitioner within time. He further submits that thereafter order dated 19.02.2000 was again issued by the authorities directing the petitioner to install further ten tube wells at different sites, which were also completed by the petitioner within one month i.e. 15.03.2010. Hence he avers that the petitioner had completed installation works of all the 43 tube wells by 15.03.2010 as per orders regarding novation of contract issued from time to time within the period prescribed by the authority and as such there was no occasion for the authorities to reject the claim of the petitioner without considering the said facts. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently contests the claim of the petitioner stating that according to the petitioner he had filed his application on 16.05.2011 and the time, according to the order of this Court, expired on 16.08.2011 hence there was delay, is wrong. He submits that due to certain reasons stated in the counter affidavit, there was some delay as the order was passed on 24.08.2011, for which the opposite parties have already tendered their unqualified apologies, but the said order was passed much before filing of this M.J.C. petition. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further argues that in the impugned order the authority concerned considered the matter in - 4 - detail as directed by this Court and serious discrepancy in the calculation of the petitioner with regard to the amount due has been found, on the basis of which and on consideration of the terms of the agreement, it was found that the petitioner had delayed the matter of completion of works allotted to him, due to which he was not entitled to any payment as per the terms of the agreement and hence his petition was rejected. 9. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that as per direction of this Court an order has been passed on 24.08.2011 by the authority concerned taking into account the respective claim of the parties and referring also to the earlier writ petitions and the orders passed therein. Hence this Court cannot look into the merit or otherwise of the said order while deciding a contempt matter. The order may be good, bad or indifferent, but its merit or otherwise cannot be looked into in this case, rather the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the said order before an appropriate forum. 10. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of. MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)