IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2088 of 2006 UMESH KUMAR Versus MR.SUMAN KUMAR I.A.S & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Labh, Advocate For the Opposite parties : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, J.C. to AAG II ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 24th July, 2008. On 22nd May, 2003, the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of by the following order – “There is paddy/ Rice procurement Policy of the Central Government. The grievance of the petitioner is that in Sitamarhi district the said scheme is not being properly followed. The petitioner represented the matter before the Collector, Sitamarhi. The Collector, Sitamarhi is directed to look into the matter and will see to it that the procurement of the paddy/rice is strictly made in accordance with the said scheme.” 2. It appears that prior to the present contempt petition, the petitioner filed another contempt petition vide M.J.C. No. 1433 of 2003. The said contempt petition was disposed of on 25th January, 2005 by the following order - “This Court had given a direction to the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, to see that the procurement policy is strictly followed in accordance with the scheme. The said policy was for 2002-03. It is now 2005. As such, no contempt has been made out. However, the District Magistrate is directed to look into the matter and in case the said policy is in existence then he will take immediate steps with regard to the same.” - 2 - 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite the order passed by this Court on 22nd May, 2003, no enquiry has been held as to whether the Paddy /Rice Procurement Policy of the Central Government is being fully implemented or not. 4. Opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have filed their show- cause and specifically denied that no enquiry has been held with regard to proper implementation of the aforesaid scheme of the Central government. As a matter of fact, it has been specifically stated that no irregularity have been found. The petitioner is also not disclosing any irregularity. 5. We are, thus, satisfied that this contempt petition is wholly misconceived and is an abuse of the process of the Court. 6. We dismiss this M.J.C. with costs. The cost is quantified at Rs.2500/-. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/