IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2912 of 2011 Thakur Ganesh Prasad, son of late Thakur Radhe Kishore Prasad, resident of Chainpatti, Police Station-Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj, proprietor of Thakur Press, Cinema Road, Gopalganj- 841428. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Shri Ashutosh, Director (Primary Education), New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Shri Md. Salehuddin Khan, District Development Commissioner (DDC), Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj. 4. Shri Satyendra Bhushan, District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj. 5. Shri Hari Narayan Tiwary, Head Clerk of the office of District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj. ….Opposite parties. ------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, A. C. to S.C. 1 ---------- 10/ 07.12.2011 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 non-compliance and disobedience of the order of this Court dated 05.04.2011 by which CWJC No.4500 of 2005 was disposed of with the following observations/directions:- 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj (Respondent No.4) alongwith an application raising his entire grievances. If such an application alongwith a copy of this order is filed by the petitioner before the said authority within 15 days from today the said authority shall decide the same by a speaking order within two months thereafter and whatever amount or interest is found admittedly payable, should be paid to the petitioner immediately thereafter. However, if any - 2 - amount or interest thereon is not found admittedly payable to the petitioner, the said authority shall pass a reasoned order with respect thereto within the aforesaid period, against which the petitioner will have liberty to approach the appropriate forum. 3. A show cause has been filed by the District Education Officer, Gopalganj (Opposite party no.4) stating that in response to the letter of the District Magistrate, Gopalganj dated 12.03.2005, the General Manager of District Industries Centre, Gopalganj sent a letter dated 09.05.2005 (Annexure-A) to the District Magistrate, Gopalganj recommending steps against seven concerns, including the petitioner, for entering their names in the black list alleging illegal payments made to them earlier. 4. Learned counsel for opposite parties also states that in view of the aforesaid report dated 09.05.2005, the District Magistrate vide letter no.1897 dated 01.08.2008 (Annexure-A series) directed the District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj to issue show cause and take further steps in the proceeding in accordance with law for black listing the said concerns, including the petitioner, and report to the District Magistrate within one fortnight. He further submits that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 05.04.2011, the District Education Officer rejected the claim of the petitioner keeping in view the aforesaid letter of the District Magistrate dated 01.08.2008 and the report of the District Industries Centre dated 09.05.2005. 5. From the records of the case it transpires that CWJC No.4500 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) That the respondents particularly, respondent - 3 - no.4 be directed to pay off the bills of the petitioner amounting to Rs.11,50,432.00 in total for the supply of various registers and other stationeries on the order of respondent no.4. (ii) That the petitioner be directed to be compensated for the delay in making payment at the behest of respondent nos.4 and 5 which caused immense loss and further progress of the press-works to the petitioner causing his serious mental distress in absence of the fund. (iii) That any other relief or reliefs which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be awarded to the petitioner. 6. In the said writ case, a counter affidavit was filed by the District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj (respondent no.4) in paragraph 9 of which the amounts claimed by the petitioner was admitted in the following way:- “ That with regard to the statements made in para no.7 of the writ petition, it is stated and submitted that in the earlier allotment the petitioner was paid Rs.4,65,154.00 towards his dues and therefore in the current allotment dated 14.10.2004 payment was made to the other suppliers (to whom payment was not made) by the order of the Collector and the petitioner was left so that other supplier would not make allegation of favourtism. It is also stated and submitted that due to paucity of fund the dues of suppliers is being cleared in rotationwise.” 7. It may be noted that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 05.04.2011, but till that date no further affidavit or any application was filed by the respondents showing any step taken by the authorities in that concern including the above mentioned report and letter dated 09.05.2005 and 01.08.2008 and only when this MJC petition was filed by the petitioner on 19.07.2011 all the documents have cropped up for rejecting the - 4 - claim of the petitioner by the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj dated 22.07.2011. 8. It is apparent from the records that counter affidavit in CWJC No.4500 of 2005 was filed by the District Superintendent of Education on 12.01.2006, but in that counter affidavit no mention was made of any report from the District Industries Centre dated 09.05.2005 (Annexure-A). From the alleged report of the District Industries Centre dated 09.05.2005 it only transpires that a recommendation had been made for initiating a proceeding for blacklisting seven concerns including the petitioner, but even according to the claim of opposite parties no step was taken in that regard for at least three years. 9. Furthermore, from letter no. 1897 dated 01.08.2008 (Annexure-A series) issued by the District Magistrate, Gopalganj to the District superintendent of Education, Gopalganj it transpires that no order was passed for black-listing the petitioner or other concerns, rather the District Superintendent of Education was directed to initiate a proceeding for black listing the petitioner and other concerns after issuing show cause notices to them and to report the matter within a fortnight. No document has been produced nor any statement has been made by the opposite parties what happened after that order, whereas the petitioner’s counsel specifically claimed that no show cause was ever asked from the petitioner in that regard. 10. Thus, it is quite apparent that the proceeding of - 5 - black listing the petitioner’s concern was never initiated for so many years and only to reject the claim of the petitioner the said order of the District Magistrate dated 01.08.2008 and alleged report of the District Industries Centre dated 09.05.2005 have been relied upon by the District Programme Officer (Establishment) Gopalganj in his order in question dated 22.07.2011 completely ignoring the statements of the District Superintendent of Education made on affidavit in his counter affidavit filed in CWJC No.4500 of 2005. It may be noted that the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj has passed the said order dated 22.07.2011 as an officer working in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it transpires that only to deny the claim of the petitioner, which had been earlier admitted by the District Superintendent of Education in the writ petition, the order in question dated 22.07.2011 has been passed by the District Programme officer (Establishment) Gopalganj illegally relying upon the earlier order of the District Magistrate and alleged report of the District Industries Centre which had never been acted upon. 12. Accordingly, the District Education Officer, Gopalganj is directed to consider afresh the entire matter in detail and pass a speaking order in accordance with law keeping in view not only the documents relied upon by the opposite parties but also the stand of the District Superintendent of Education in his counter - 6 - affidavit filed in CWJC No.4500 of 2005 and other documents available on record. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner must produce a copy of this order along with his detailed representation before the District Education Officer within fifteen days from today, whereafter the District Education Officer shall consider the matter in accordance with law and shall decide it by a speaking order keeping in view all the facts and circumstances mentioned above within two months thereafter. If any amount is found payable to the petitioner it should be paid to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. 14. With the aforesaid observations/direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sunil ( S. N. Hussain, J.)