IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3627 of 2010 SIKANDAR AZAM KHAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 04. 18.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Counsel for the State produces a copy of letter No. 514 dated 16.05.2011 said to have been addressed to the petitioner informing him that a sum of Rs. 47500/- has been forwarded to the treasury for payment to the petitioner in accordance with Bill number mentioned in the letter. Counsel for the petitioner expresses apprehension with regard to the actual payment if contempt proceedings are disposed of today. The letter which has been produced on behalf of Block Development Officer opposite party No. 7 should more appropriately have been filed in the form of an affidavit. It was for the Block Development Officer to take steps expeditiously for the same in view of pendency of the case. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Block Development Officer prays for time to file counter affidavit. The Court is not inclined to grant time to the Block Development Officer. Copy of the letter being produced by the State counsel, the Court has no reason to doubt its genuineness. The petitioner shall appear with a copy of the present order before the Block Development Officer. In view of the letter produced on behalf the Block 2 Development Officer in the Court, he alone now has to ensure compliance of the order of the Court. If the benefit of actual fiscal payment is not ensured by the Block Development Officer to the petitioner within a maximum period of 10 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Block Development Officer, the Block Development Officer shall remain answerable to this Court directly for the assurance given to the Court. Let a copy of the letter dated 16.5.2011 be kept on record. The application is disposed. If the petitioner be aggrieved by the quantum of payment he may pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum. Prakash ( Navin Sinha, J.)