IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2707 of 2008 Satya Narayan Prasad Saha, son of late Sitaram Saha, resident of Ward No. 19, West of N.H.31, Post Office, Police Station and District- Kishanganj Versus 1. The Union of India through the Chairman Railway Board, New Delhi 2. K.C. Gena, Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi 3. Ashutosh Swami, General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, at and post office Meligaon, District- Guwahati, Assam 4. A.S. Garur, Chief Engineer, North-East Frontier Railway at and post office, Maligaon, District-Guwahati, Assam 5. Kul Bhushan, Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) North East Frontier Railway New Jalpaiguri, West Bengal 6. Deepak Dastidar Executive Engineer (Construction), North-East Frontier Railway, Kishanganj 7. A.S. Yadav, Estate Officer, North East Frontier Railway, Estate Office, Katihar. ----------- 6. 27.10.2009 The petitioner claims violation of the order dated 7.12.1998 passed in CWJC No. 7499 of 1998. By the aforesaid order this Court had directed the petitioner to move before the Estate Officer (N.F.Railway) to ventilate his grievance by filing an appropriate application which was to be decided by a reasoned order after taking evidence. The petitioner claims to have filed an application in that regard in the year 1999 but the stand of the opposite parties is that no such application is available with them and further, the petitioner has at no time approached the Estate Officer for the decision on the said application and thus no action has been taken. The further stand is that the petitioner has neither been restrained nor his possession has been disturbed nor any intimation has been made for dispossession of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, considering the fact that the order was passed on 7.12.1998 and the petitioner has not shown any 2 intention in pursuing the said order, no case for proceeding under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The contempt application is accordingly dismissed. If the authorities of the Railway intend to proceed against the petitioner in future, then they can only do so in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. S. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)