IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.722 of 2008 MAUSAMI D.D.T CHHIRKAON KARAMCHARI SANGH THROUGH SURENDRA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 06 03/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. In C.W.J.C. no. 7543 of 1999 this Court gave directions for preparation of a panel at the District level by the District Magistrate and at the State level by the Chief Malaria Officer. When the order was not complied, M.J.C. No. 896 of 2007 was filed. The opposite parties took the stand that a panel had been prepared on 8.2.2006. M.J.C. No. 896 of 2007 was disposed off with the observation that if a panel had been prepared, a natural corollary was to make appointments from the panel and not to keep it in the cupboard. When no appointments were still made, the present contempt application again came to be filed. The first show cause on behalf of O.P. No.3 states that the State level panel had been prepared but answers nothing about appointments from the same. The stand of the opposite parties 8 and 9 is that the panel prepared at the District level on 8.2.2006 was illegal. That in effect means the opposite parties mislead the Court in M.J.C. No. 896 of 2007 paying lip service to the orders of this 2 Court, intentionally preparing an illegal panel only to escape proceeding in contempt. That there may have been a fresh advertisement issued is of no consequence to the present controversy. The panel of 8.2.2006 cannot be enforced today more so when it is illegal and no appointments have been made from the State level panel. This Court finds it difficult to grant any relief to the petitioner in the contempt jurisdiction. However, this Court is satisfied that the conduct of the opposite parties is far from satisfactory and tantamounts to recklessly misleading the Court. This Court could have proceeded against them appropriately for misleading this Court in M.J.C. No. 896 of 2007 on oath by preparing an illegal panel. However, the Court refrains from doing so. The Court is however satisfied that the opposite parties are liable to be imposed exemplary cost for not only having misled this Court willfully, but for also having unnecessary wasted the time of the Court as also for having made no appointment after preparation of a State level panel. This Court impose costs on the opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to be deposited by them in the Patna High Court Legal 3 Services Committee within a period of one weeks and file proof of deposit within the same period, failing which the Committee shall be at liberty to recover this amount as a decree of Court. The State of Bihar is directed to hold an enquiry and fix responsibility on the officials of manner in which a wholly incorrect statement was made by them before the Court and then proceed to recover the same from the salary of such officials quite apart from any other, disciplinary action in its own wisdom. If the petitioners apply in response to the fresh advertisement, this Court directs that their case is required to be considered thereunder when on account of the conduct of the opposite parties themselves this Court is constrained to direct that the petitioners shall be entitled to appropriate reduction of age in accordance with law also. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)