IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1135 of 2007 BABAN SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the State: Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar 14. 25.8.2008 This contempt petition has been filed asserting non- compliance of the order of this court dated 5.12.2006 passed in CWJC No.4641 of 2006. Perusal whereof indicates that thereunder impugned annexures 9, 10, 12 and 13 were quashed following the order dated 9,8,2006, 12.10.2006 passed in the similar case of Braj Nandan Singh CWJC No.10394 of 2000, MJC No.2150 of 2006 and respondents were directed to consider the case of petitioner. Further perusal of the aforesaid orders dated 9.8.2006 and 12.10.2006 indicate that the impugned orders were quashed on the ground that Braj Nandan Singh was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing of the impugned annexures. Having quashed the order, this court directed the Director, Ground Water Directorate, Bihar, to reconsider the entire matter relating to cancellation of promotion as also grant of first time bound promotion in the light of the submissions made in the representation. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 5.12.2006 the petitioner filed representation dated 29.8.2007 and the Director, Ground Water Directorate has disposed of the representation under order 17.10.2007, annexure-A to the supplementary show cause taking similar view which was taken in the earlier impugned orders. Counsel for the petitioner submits that perusal of the orders would make it abundantly clear that the Director has not considered the 2 representation as he has passed a cryptic order which tantamount to violation of the order of this court dated 5.12.2006 as also the orders dated 9.8.2006 and 12.10.2006. Having perused the order dated 17.10.2007 I am satisfied that the authorities have considered the representation and have passed the order taking the same view which they had taken earlier. In none of the earlier orders of this court dated 9.8.2006, 12.10.2006 and 5.12.2006 this court guided the authorities about the manner in which they have to consider the representation and the authorities having taken the same view which they had earlier taken, cannot be held to be in contempt of this court. In the circumstances, the contempt petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 17.10.2007 by filing a writ petition. Md.S. ( V.N.Sinha,J.)