IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.831 of 2007 1.ANJU KUMAR, SON OF SRI RAJENDRA YADAV, RESIDENT OF MOHALLAH-JAIPRAKASH NAGAR, KHAGARIA. 2.KUMOD PRASAD SAHNI, SON OF LATE SIYARAM SAHNI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-SANHAULI, WARD NO. 4, KHAGARIA. 3.ANIL KUMAR SAHNI, SON OF LATE SITARAM SAHNI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-KALI ASTHAN, KHAGARIA. 4.MOHAN PRASAD JAISWAL, SON OF LATE BIDYANAND JAISWAL, RESIDENT OF NORTH HAJIPUR, WARD NO. 13 KHAGARIA. 5.KAPILESHWAR PRASAD CHAUDHARY, SON OF LATE RAMATAR CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF KOSHI COLLEGE ROAD, KHAGARIA. 6.RAMJI SAH, SON OF LATE JAGDISH SAH, RESIDENT OF STATION ROAD, WARD NO. 9, KHAGARIA. 7.TRIVENI YADAV, SON OF LATE MAHADEO YADAV, RESIDENT OF JAIPRAKASH NAGAR, WARD NO. 16, KHAGARIA. 8.MOHD.KASIM, SON OF LATE MD. MUFAZ, RESIDENT OF JAIPRAKASH NAGAR, NALA ROAD, WARD NO. 16, KHAGARIA. 9.SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE SHIBU SINGH, RESIDENT OF HAJIPUR, WARD NO. 12, KHAGARIA. 10.ABHAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE ASHOK SINGH, RESIDENT OF HAJIPUR, WARD NO. 12, KHAGARIA. 11.SUDHIR YADAV, SON OF LATE JANGLI YADAV, RESIDENT OF JAIPRAKASH NAGAR, WARD NO. 16, KHAGARIA. 12. SHEOJI GOSWAMI, SON OF LATE JAGARNATH GOSWAMI, RESIDENT OF YASHODA NAGAR, WARD NO. 13, KHAGARIA. ALL ARE OF P.S.- KHAGARIA TOWN, DISTT.- KHAGARIA. ……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.SHRI MAYANK BARBARE, THE COLLECTOR KHAGARIA. 3.SHRI UPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH, THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KHAGARIA. 4.SMT. SARITA DEVI, THE CHAIRMAN, KHAGARIA MUNICIPALITY, KHAGARIA. 5.SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR BHAGAT, THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KHAGARIA MUNICIPALITY, KHAGARIA. ……………OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 03/ 17.01.2011 Having perused the contents of the earlier order of this Court dated 13.03.1991 violation whereof has been alleged in this contempt application filed after 16 years, this Court is satisfied that when even an earlier contempt application filed by the petitioners, M.J.C No. 652 of 1991 did not lead to any favourable result and the shops in question were subsequently settled through lottery and the petitioners’ writ application against such settlement of shops was also dismissed in the year 1992, there would be now hardly anything left for this Court to decide in this contempt application. We must take note of the fact that not only the delay but also the repeated practice of filing contempt application against the order which has already stood complied is an abuse of the process of the Court. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Ranjan (T. Meena Kumari,J) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J) 3