IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC NO.483 OF 2010 M/S INDIA FOOD PRESERVATION INDUSTRIES VERSUS 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BSFC, FRAZER ROAD, PATNA THROUGH SHRI S.SINHA, MD. 3. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BSFC, PATNA THROUGH SRI A. SINGH, CHAIRMAN. ----------- 9 06.10.2010. The petitioner has filed this application for initiating contempt proceeding against opposite parties for willful disobedience of order of this court dated 11.9.2009, passed in Cr.W.J.C.No.11802/2009 which reads as follows:- “ In the instant application, the petitioner has prayed for summoning the opposite parties for having committed Contempt of Court by violating the order of this Court dated 11.09.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11802 of 2009. This Court by order dated 11.09.2009 observed that if the petitioner files an application before respondent no.2, the aforesaid proposal and willingness to pay the matching amount , the same would be disposed of after hearing Mrs. Vibha Kumari as well. This court further observed that in the meantime, status quo would be maintained. The petitioner submits that he has filed representation but the same was not disposed of. He further submits that he has served a copy of this order on the learned counsel for the B.S.F.C. It appears that no one appeared for the B.S.F.C. on 07.04.2010 as also on other dates, even though on 05.05.2010 notice was issued to opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Issue Bailable warrant against opposite party nos. 2 and 3.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Vibha Kumari had quoted the price of auction sale. He further submits that within time he filed a representation before opposite party 2 no.2 expressing desire to pay a sum of Rs. 7.15 lakh. A show cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2. Mr. Shahi, learned Advocate General, Bihar submits that pursuant to direction contained in aforesaid order, representation of petitioner was considered by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 23.6.2010. Representation of petitioner was however rejected as the same did not contain repayment plan for the balance amount due against the unit as per direction of the Court and the Board advised to complete necessary formalities for sale in favour of the purchaser. The order of the Board was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 71 dated 5.7.2010. Having heard the parties, this Court drops the contempt proceeding with observation that if the petitioner has any further grievance regarding decision of the Board, he may challenge the same before appropriate forum. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)