IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.825 of 2011 In (MJC 3250/2009) NAND KISHORE TIWARI SON OF LATE GAURI SHANKAR TIWARI, THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, SAGHAR, SULTANPUR DAKSHINI PANCHAYAT, BLOCK BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTT.- SIWAN .......Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SRI ANJANI KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. SRI BALA MURGAN S/O NOT KNOWN THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN 4. SRI B.N. JHA S/O NOT KNOWN THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, DISTT.- SIWAN 5. SRI SUBHASH NARAYAN S/O NOT KNOWN THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK- BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTT.- SIWAN 6. SRI BIRENDRA KR. SINGH S/O NOT KNOWN THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTT.- SIWAN 7. MAN MOHAN MISIR S/O SRI PARAS MISIR THE MUKHIYA, SAGHAR SULTANPUR DAKSHINI PANCHAYAT, BLOCK BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTT.- SIWAN 8. SRI SHASHI PRABHA S/O NOT KNOWN THE HEAD MASTER, LOWER PRATHMIK VIDYALAY, MAGHAR, BLOCK BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTT.- SIWAN 9. MITHILA KUMARI W/O SRI SURESH KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL.- JAJAULI, P.O.- BALSAHI, P.S. MASRAKH, DISTT.- SIWAN ..Respondents With Letters Patent Appeal No.879 of 2011 IN (MJC 3250/2009) MAN MOHAN MISIR S/O LATE PARAS MISIR THE MUKHIYA, SAGHAR SULTANPUR DAKSHINI PANCHAYAT, BLOCK BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTT.- SIWAN .....Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SRI ANJANI KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. SRI BALA MURGAN S/O NOT KNOWN THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN 2 4. SRI B.N. JHA S/O NOT KNOWN THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, DISTT.- SIWAN 5. SRI SUBHASH NARAYAN S/O NOT KNOWN THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK- BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTT.- SIWAN 6. SRI BIRENDRA KR. SINGH S/O NOT KNOWN THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTT.- SIWAN 7. NAND KISHORE TIWARI SON OF LATE GAURI SHANKAR TIWARI, THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, SAGHAR, SULTANPUR DAKSHINI PANCHAYAT, BLOCK BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTT.- SIWAN 8. SRI SHASHI PRABHA S/O NOT KNOWN THE HEAD MASTER, LOWER PRATHMIK VIDYALAY, MAGHAR, BLOCK BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTT.- SIWAN 9. MITHILA KUMARI W/O SRI SURESH KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL.- JAJAULI, P.O.- BALSAHI, P.S. MASRAKH, DISTT.- SIWAN ---------------------------------- 3 24-08-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. These appeals are directed against the order dated 6-4-2011 passed in a contempt petition bearing MJC no. 3250/2009. The contempt case arose on account of non compliance with the judgement and order dated 25-3-2009 passed in CWJC no. 2040/ 2008. That writ petition, as appears from the relevant records, was disposed of without any counter affidavit on behalf of respondents. The record of that case further discloses that no notice was issued to the concerned respondents including the appellants. Through supplementary affidavit, the 3 appellants have categorically stated that they came to know of the said writ petition only after its disposal when a representation was filed by the petitioner of that case, Mithila Kumari, on 5-4-2009. By the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has considered relevant facts under which the petitioner of that case had faced difficulty in joining her post because before obtaining the order from the writ court she had been removed and another person had been appointed on the post in question. The Court has expressed its displeasure against the concerned respondents including the appellants for not assisting the court properly and not bringing the relevant facts to its knowledge by filing counter affidavit in CWJC no. 2040/2008 and for this very reason the learned Single Judge decided to impose exemplary cost on the Opposite Parties 4, 7 and 8 quantified as Rs. 30,000/- each. The cost has been directed to be deposited before the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee. The appellants are Opposite Parties no. 7 and 8. Since, on perusal of records of CWJC no. 4 2040/2008, it has been found that no notice was issued to these appellants and since learned counsel for the State has also failed to produce any material to show that they had been intimated about the pendency of the said writ petition for the purpose of filing counter affidavit, we are constrained to accept the contention advanced on behalf of appellants that they had no knowledge of the writ petition bearing CWJC no. 2040/ 2008 before its final disposal. Hence, they cannot be held responsible for not assisting the court by filing counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, the relevant part of the order under appeal whereby cost of Rs. 30,000/- has been imposed upon both the appellants is set aside. Both the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)