IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2040 of 2009 SMT.SANGEETA TIWARI @ SANGEETA DEVI, wife of Sri Arun Kr. Tiwari, resident of 5A/39, Indrapauri, P.S. Patliputra, District-Patna..............................................................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Jitendra Kumar Sinha, the District Magistrate, Patna. 2. Sri Ravi Ranjan, Son of Not known, Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna. 3. Chandradeo Rai, Son of not known, resident of 5A/39, Indrapuri, P.S. Patliputra, District-Patna..............Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Kumar Alok, S.C. 19 and Mr. R.K.Singh, A. C. to S.C.19. ---------- 3. 12.8.2009. This case has been filed on behalf of the petitioner who is admittedly a tenant of opposite party no.3 in the suit premises. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is that a proceeding of contempt be initiated against the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, (opposite party no.2) for wilful violation and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court dated 18.6.2009 by which C.W.J.C. No. 6844 of 2009 was disposed of with a direction to the House Controller cum Sub Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, to immediately take up the matter as the life and property of the petitioner and his family was in danger and to pass an interim order in accordance with law within a week from the date of receipt/production of the said order and also to finally dispose of the matter after following the legal procedure without any undue delay. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that the said order dated 18.6.2009 has not been complied and hence opposite party no.2, the - 2 - Sub Divisional officer, Patna Sadar, deserves punishment for disobedience and contempt of court. 4. Opposite Party no.2, the Sub Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, has filed his show cause in which the order sheet of the case, bearing B.B.C. Case No. 21 of 2009 has been annexed as Annexure-B which clearly shows that on 22.6.2009 he received a copy of the said order of this Court passed in the writ case whereafter on 29.6.2009 he passed an order directing the authorities to immediately provide electric and water supply to the petitioner and report compliance by 6.7.2009. It further transpires that subsequently on 6.7.2009 while the petitioner (the tenant) was absent, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 (landlord) appeared in court and stated that electric and water is being supplied to the premises. 5. From the order sheet it also transpires that the petitioner (the tenant) was not only absent from the court on 6.7.2009 but on subsequent dates i.e., 27.7.2009, 29.7.2009, 31.7.2009 and 3.8.2009 also he remained absent. 6. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner submits in this Court that on 4.7.2009 he has filed a petition in the court below stating that the water and electricity connection has not been restored for which a spot verification be made. A copy of the said petition is produced by him in the court which is neither a certified copy nor any mention of the said petition has been made in the M.J.C. petition nor the order sheet of the case shows that such a petition had been filed in the court below till 3.8.2009. - 3 - 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the entire claim of the petitioner is absolutely false and she has been misleading not only the court below but has tried to mislead this Court also by raising false and frivolous pleas. 8. In the said circumstances, this M.J.C. petition is dismissed and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, is directed to dispose of B.B.C. Case No. 21 of 2009 expeditiously preferably within a period of one month without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties and if the petitioner who had filed the aforesaid B.B.C. case does not appear in the case an appropriate order in that regard may be passed. U.K. (S.N.Hussain,J)