IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2347 of 2010 Upendra Chaudhary son of late Ganesh Chaudhary resident of village Ltahari, P.O. Fudkichak, Police Station Gogri, District Khagaria ....Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Sri Santosh Maithyou S/o not known, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Sri Arvind Kumar Singh S/o not known, the District Magistrate, Munger 4. Sri Bindeshwari Pd. Singh son of not known, the Executive Engineer, Rural Development Department, Special Division (Pra-Aa) Munger 5. Sri Surendra Jha son of not known, the Superintendent of Engineer, Rural Development Department, Special Division (Pra-Aa) Munger ....Opposite Parties ----------- 3 15-09-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Pursuant to order of Division Bench in LPA no. 297/2010 dated 15-2-2010, the petitioner made a prayer through annexure-2 dated 27-2-2010 requesting the various authorities to pay him balance amount of a particular project along with interest. That representation in annexure-2 mentions the place of posting of the petitioner as Junior Engineer on deputation in block Haveli Kharagpur (in anticipation of orders). The direction of the Division Bench was that the petitioner should prefer an explanation by giving the details to the competent authority within six weeks and thereafter the 2 said authority, which is Executive Engineer in this case, was to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then to determine whether the work in question had been undertaken, the amount had been spent and whether the amount has fallen due for being realized from the petitioner. Such exercise was to be completed within 8 weeks. According to the petitioner the prayer made in annexure-2 was sufficient explanation and thereafter the concerned authority was free to decide the matter but before that petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing. In the show cause filed on behalf of Executive Engineer, Opposite Party no.4, a stand has been taken that inspite of letter written to the petitioner at his permanent address because of non availability of his present address, and inspite of notice published in two prominent Hindi newspapers published from Patna, that is, Prabhat Khabar and Aaj, the petitioner did not submit any explanation nor he appear before Opposite Party no.4 and in such circumstances Opposite Party 3 no.4 has passed the final order ex parte on the basis of available materials. That order annexed as annexure-E to the show cause bears letter no.966 dated 14-8-2010. Although there is no specific denial that annexure-2 was not filed by the petitioner but on perusal of the same, we do not find any explanation with regard to the issues noted in the order of the Division Bench for final determination. Although the petitioner has claimed to have visited the office of Opposite Party no.4 on several occasions but he has never sought any appointment from Opposite Party no.4 and never claimed for any right of hearing. In fact there appears substance in the stand of Opposite Party. no.4 that no explanation was submitted in terms of the Division Bench order and apparently petitioner avoided to appear in person inspite of notice published in the newspapers. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order passed by Opposite Party no.4, as contained in annexure-E, amounts to sufficient compliance with the order of the Division Bench. The contempt application is dismissed. 4 It goes without saying that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the determination or decision contained in annexure-E, he would be at liberty to pursue his remedy through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)