IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3457 of 2010 Ramesh Kumar Chaudhary Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. ---------------------------------- 8. 14.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Opposite Parties. Paragraph-8 of the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 is to say the least very unfortunate. It is a tacit and explicit acknowledgement that the opposite parties acted blindly at the stage of preparation of the panel. That they did not verify the documents of an applicant properly. The result was a writ petition followed by a contempt application. The controversy cannot be determined in the contempt jurisdiction. The result shall be another writ petition. The question is who is generating all this litigation. Where does the answerability and accountability for the same lie. Perhaps these are matters which shall have to be enquired and determined in any fresh proceeding, if the petitioner is so advised. The proceeding stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)