IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2606 of 2008 UMESH PRASAD SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . with C. REV. No.306 of 2010 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. . Versus UMESH PD. SINGH & ORS. . ----------- 6/ 15/12/2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to withdraw the review application. It is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties in M.J.C. No.2606/08. The present is yet another case of the manner in which the officials of the State who are supposed to act in the best interest of the State and assist the Court in dispensation of justice, fritter away the resources of the State and waste the time of the Court. Today, in M.J.C. No.2768/09 in a matter of a similar nature where an order was passed in purported compliance of the order of the Court, and when questioned in the contempt proceedings as flouting the order of the Court, a fresh proper order came to be passed leading to the contempt proceedings being dropped with a fine of Rs.25,000/- being imposed on the officer in his personal capacity. In the present case also - 2 - the Court was inclined to impose similar costs while dropping the contempt proceedings. Perhaps, that may not serve to achieve the purpose by drawing attention of the appropriate authorities to the malaise that exists. An impression appears from more than one case that some officials of the State consider contesting litigation before this Court at the State expense as a privilege, not appreciating the seriousness and solemnity of a proceeding before this Court, more particularly in contempt. The attitude appears to be and is perhaps leading to multiplication of litigations when a writ petition has to be followed by a contempt application. The Writ Court directed consideration of the claims of the petitioner with regard to the re-fixation of his basic salary along with orders for consequential recovery in light of certain earlier orders of this Court. In compliance thereof the opposite party No.4 passed an order that the earlier orders of this Court came to be complied as no L.P.A. could be filed in time and therefore it could not be treated as a precedent to be followed in the case of the petitioner. The Court on 8.9.2010 observed that it appears that the opposite parties were flouting the orders of this Court and directed their personal appearance on 29.9.2010 to show cause why charges be not framed against them. No sooner that the - 3 - Court passed the aforesaid order on 8.9.2010 a Civil Review No.306/10 came to be filed by the opposite parties on 2.11.2010. When the contempt application was taken up on 27.10.2010, in view of the Civil Review having been filed, the Court directed both of them to be taken up together. The Civil Review application was therefore never heard. Today, when both the Civil Review and the Contempt Application were called out together, at the very outset learned counsel for the State sought leave to withdraw the review application without addressing the Court on the merits of the review application. Simultaneously, afresh show cause has been filed by opposite party No.4. The discussion in the order gives the reflection to any one who may read it that after the Civil Review was filed, in view of what may have transpired in Court during the hearing of the review application, in deference to the wishes of the Court the opposite party No.4 was passing a fresh order. That obviously is not the correct factual position. It is unfortunate that opposite party No.4 has sought to put words in the mouth of the Court which it never said. In view of the fresh order dated 13.12.2010, the contempt proceedings are dropped. Let the Registry of the Court prepare a complete set of papers of the contempt application and the Civil - 4 - Review. The same shall be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State to form a compulsory case study in framing of the State Litigation Policy so that not only are the funds of the State not wasted by its officials but the Court is not burdened with what is completely avoidable litigation. The application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)