IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3691 of 2010 SIDHANATH DUBEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 25.2.2011. Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 and 3. Mr. Singh, with reference to para-4 of the show cause filed in present proceeding, submits that the order of this court has since been complied and an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- being the amount recovered from the gratuity and leave encashment of the petitioner, has been refunded to him vide Cheque No.780817 dated 9.12.2010. He thus submits that nothing survives in the present proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no instructions in the matter but from the statement made in para-4 of the show cause, it appears that the order has since been complied. Mr. Singh further, with reference to the I.A.No.395 of 2011 prays for modification of the order dated 9.12.2010. By order dated 9.12.2010 passed in the writ petition, cost of Rs.5000/- had been imposed 2 on the opposite party nos.2 and 3 to be paid jointly on account of non furnishing of instructions to their counsel and non filing of the show cause in the present proceedings. Learned counsel submits that in view of the statements made in para-4 of the show cause and para-7 of the modification application, the order was complied but unfortunately it could not be communicated to the counsel representing the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and which resulted in the imposition of cost. He submits that in this back ground the order imposing cost may be re- considered. Regard being had to the circumstances and the statements made in the show cause as well as in the interlocutory application, I am of the opinion that sufficient grounds have been made out for modification of the part of the order dated 9.12.2010 whereby cost was imposed on opposite party nos.2 and 3. As a consequence, the order dated 9.12.2010 in so far it relates to imposition of cost, is modified and recalled. The contempt petition as well as the Interlocutory application stand disposed of. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J) 3