IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3523 of 2009 MUNNA KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. . ----------- 05. 23.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The order in the writ petition was simplicitor for disposal of representation. The petitioner in haste was not even desirous of pressing the grounds of the representation. The show cause filed on behalf of the District Superintendent of Education states that on 9.2.2011 the representation has been disposed rejecting the claims. Statement has been made in paprapgraph-5 that the costs for the delay in filing of the show cause has been deposited as directed on 12.1.2011 and that an enquiry shall be held to fix responsibility for recovery. The show cause of the District Superintendent of Education does not contain any explanation for the delay in the filing of the show cause. The Court is therefore satisfied that the responsibility for the delay rests squarely on the District Superintendent of Education. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj is therefore directed to ensure that the amount of costs of Rs.1,000/- are recovered from the salary of the District Superintendent of 2 Education. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2011, his remedy lies in questioning the same in a fresh writ application. The proceeding stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)