IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2748 of 2007 TULSI PRASAD SINGH . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 06. 03.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A Bench of this Court on 17.3.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 211 of 2000 noticed that the claims of the petitioner vacilated between the B.R.A. University and J.P University for the respective periods. The petitioner had not represented to the B.R.A. University for the period that the liability fell in its share, but had submitted the representation to the J.P. University. Opportunity was granted to represent to the B.R.A. University observing “it goes without saying that the order goes against the petitioners then they would be at liberty to challenge the same by filing an I.A. application” the final order dated 13.6.2005 in the writ petition and which gives rise to the contempt proceedings is that the petitioner had not represented in terms of the order dated 17.3.2005. Opportunity was granted to do so and the proceedings disposed. By Annexure-B to the show cause, the representation of the petitioner has been disposed by an order dated 23.10.2010. It shall not be the jurisdiction of this Court 2 to examine the fresh order on its merits in the contempt proceedings. It had already been observed in the writ petition that any fresh order on the representation would be amenable to challenge separately. That obviously refers to a freshly constituted writ application only or an amendment in the writ petition which never came to be done. The contempt proceedings are dropped. The petitioner is at liberty, if so advised to question the fresh order in a fresh writ proceeding. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)