IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1575 of 2008 ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 08. 12. 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. No one appears on behalf of the State. However, a show cause has been filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 5 annexing copy of order contained in Memo No. 611-2, dated 06. 08. 08 (Annexure-A), whereby the representation of the petitioner was disposed of. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by the order of the Court, District Magistrate was directed to dispose of the representation, but the representation was disposed of by the Block Development Officer and as such the order is not complied with. The District Magistrate sent to the Block Development Officer the representation since the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2006 has come into force and in terms of Clause 18 whereof Prakhand Bikash Adhikari is the competent authority under the Rule to take decision. Thereafter, representation was considered and it was found that representation of the petitioner did not contain correct fact and the same was accordingly, rejected as per the aforesaid order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector could not have sent the representation of the petitioner to B.D.O. 2 Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the order as contained in Annexure-A, I find that since the order has been substantially complied with, the contempt application need not proceed further. Accordingly, this contempt application is dismissed. m.p. (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)