IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2323 of 2011 M/S Kumar Electric, Patna through its Proprietor, Brajesh Kumar, son of Sri Jalim Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla-Punaichak (Near Devi Asthan), P.S. Shastrinagar, Town/District – Patna…….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sri Ajay Nayak, Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Sri Birendra Prasad, Chief Engineer, Energy Deptt., Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Sri Shyam Nandan Prasad (S.N. Prasad), Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Works Division, Bhagalpur, Combined Building, Bhagalpur. 5. Sri Ramesh Chandra Prasad, Superintending Engineer, Electric Works Circle, Combined Building, Doranda, Ranchi. 6. Sri Pramod Kumar, Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric works Division, Dhanbad near Registry Office, Dhanbad. 7. Sri J.C. Dutta, Chief Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna………………………………………………..Opposite parties. For the petitioner : Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Mr. P. Tekriwal, G.A.-1 and Mr. Abbas Haider, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 07/ 14.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for alleged disobedience of order of this court dated 24.01.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No.2972 of 2005 and other analogous cases. 3. From the aforesaid order it is quite apparent that the said writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise his claims before the Chief Engineer, Energy Department, Government of Bihar and if such representation was filed within two weeks from that date, the said authority - 2 - was directed to examine the claims of the petitioner and decide the same by a speaking order in accordance with law within two months thereafter and if the claims of the petitioner were found to be true the said authority was directed to make payment of the entire admitted dues to the petitioner within two months thereafter. However, it was specifically observed that if the claims of the petitioner were rejected by the said authority either wholly or partly the said authority must pass a speaking order within the above mentioned time which the petitioner may challenge before the appropriate forum. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner moved the said authority within time prescribed by this court and the said authority decided the same on 19.07.2011 (Annexure-B to the show-cause) rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 5. The said order of the authority dated 19.07.2011 is a detailed order and this court in a contempt matter cannot look into its legality or otherwise. This court finds that in compliance of the aforesaid order of this court the authority has passed an order and the validity of the said order can only be considered by the appropriate and competent forum where the petitioner challenges the said order of the authority for which specific observations had already been made by this court in its order dated 24.01.2011 passed in the aforesaid analogous writ cases. 6. In the said circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition to - 3 - enable him to approach the authority concerned under the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)